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 →

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-I

2015 (5) TMI 1007 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dt. 01/03/2002 wrongly availed - Demand for duty and interest and penalty - manufacturer of PSC / RCC and steel pipes - Held that:- Notification and condition No.47A, the exemption is available subject to the condition “if, a certificate is issued by the Collector/DM/DC of the district in which the plant is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion. Moreover both Patancheru unit and Azamabad unit belong to the same company. Further the appellants also explained that because of heavy workload and technical problems, pipes were supplied by the other unit. While the demand for duty cannot be found fault with as already mentioned and interest is also payable, we cannot sustain the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules since apparently there was a mistake on the part of the appellant and after all the pipes have been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

credit already reversed need not have been reversed. - E/677/2007-DB - Final Order No. 21435 / 2015 - Dated:- 28-5-2015 - SHRI G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent : Shri L. Dendem, Authorised representative ORDER PER : B.S.V. MURTHY Nobody is present for the appellant. This is the 6th occasion when the matter is coming up for hearing. Therefore the appeal is taken up for decision. 2. Appellant is a manufacturer of PSC / RCC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tiated culminating in confirmation of demand for duty of ₹ 25,382/- for the clearances made in June 2005. Penalty of ₹ 25,884/- was also imposed. 3. Learned AR would submit that the appellants had deliberately suppressed the fact that exemption had been extended to their Patancheru unit whereas the goods were cleared by Azamabad unit. Therefore the demand for duty as well as imposition of penalty are sustainable. 4. We have considered the submissions. On going through the records and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

confirming the receipt and end-use of the pipes in question. 5. The observations made hereinabove would show that apparently the pipes were used for the end-use as per the notification. The only difficulty is that according to notification and condition No.47A, the exemption is available subject to the condition if, a certificate is issued by the Collector/DM/DC of the district in which the plant is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner o .....

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