Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur

Valuation of goods manufactured by the appellant and transferred to their sister unit - Penalty imposed - captive consumption - whether further manufacture of finished goods has not been properly done in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation [Determination of Price of Excisable Goods] Rules, 2000? - Held that:- Commissioner examined the report submitted by the Assistant Director (Cost) and the CAS-4 details submitted by the appellants. He found that when total is calculated the differe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Cement Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that the ingredients mentioned in Section 11AC are also required to be considered while determining the question of levying of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules.

We find that the Original authority did not substantiate the reason for imposing penalty under Rule 25 specially when he has found that there is no ground to allege any malafide on the part of the assessee for, payment of duty at the time of clearance. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

J. P. Kaushik (Advocate) For the Respondent : Mr. Govind Dixit, DR ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: The present appeal is against the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of SAN Co-Polymers liable to Central Excise duty. They transfer this co-polymer 1to their other factory located in Bhansali Nagar. On scrutiny of records, the Revenue entertained certain doubts regarding the corr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n properly in terms of CAS-4. Three SCNs were issued covering the period March 2004 to January 2005 to demand differential duty. The case was adjudicated by the impugned order and the Ld. Commissioner confirmed reduced differential duties in respect of all the three demands. In respect of first notice, he confirmed the demand of ₹ 18,713/- as against ₹ 1,95,297/- demanded in the notice. Similarly in respect of second SCN an amount of ₹ 3,56,486/- was confirmed as against the pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

what was confirmed by the Commissioner. The case involved is the application of correct standards of accounting to arrive at the 110% of the cost of production in terms of the above mentioned Valuation Rules. In such a situation Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no scope for imposing a penalty. In fact he mentioned that in the first SCN the penalty provision of Rule 25 was not even invoked. In respect of the 3rd SCN admittedly they have already paid much more than the demanded amount. The 2nd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version