Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V

2016 (3) TMI 476 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Differential duty paid on account of revision of cost in respect of captively consumed goods and transferred to their sister unit - whether subject to interest or not and penalty should be imposed or not? - Held that:- We find that the demand of interest under Section 11AB is correctly confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority as interest liability arises on the differential Central Excise duty paid due to revision of the cost of the goods. This law is s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

revision in the cost not done at the time of clearance of the goods to their sister concern. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that the issue is of revenue neutrality as duty paid on clearance of the goods to their sister concern is cenvatable. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that the issue is revenue neutral as any amount paid as central excise on parts and components, cleared to their sister concern, the recipient unit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be no violation of any provisions. Penalty imposed on the appellant is unwarranted. - Decided in favour of assessee in part - Appeal No. E/2288/05 - Order No. A/3487/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 6-10-2015 - MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Ravi L. Ramanan SGM, HOD AFS Excise For the Respondent : Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) ORDER PER: M.V. RAVINDRAN This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal BR(384) 41/MV/2005 dated 31.0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paid so. They are only disputing the demand of interest and the imposition of penalty. We find that the demand of interest under Section 11AB is correctly confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority as interest liability arises on the differential Central Excise duty paid due to revision of the cost of the goods. This law is settled and does not require any revisit. 4.1 As regards the penalty, we find that the penalty is imposed under Rule 25 of the Centra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version