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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V Versus M/s. Divya Electro Tech Pvt. Ltd.

2016 (3) TMI 562 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of small scale exemption - Held that:- Classification list and period in the present case is different from the period and classification list involved in the case of Commissioner (Appeals)'s Order dated 06-4-1994. In the present case which is based on Commissioner (Appeals)'s Order dated 04-7-2001 which was accepted by the revenue cannot be influenced by any out come in the appeal filed by the revenue in the New Delhi Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I, wherein the revenues appeal was rejected. 2. The fact of the case is that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of the Time Recorder (claimed classification under sub-heading no. 9106.00), Line Converter/ Concentrator (claimed classification under sub-heading no. 8473.00) and Printer (claimed classification under sub-heading no. 9106.00). The respondent also claimed the small scale exemption as was admissible at the relevant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

On finding that the views of the department were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) by his Order-in-Appeal No. ZBN/375/M-IV/2001 dated 04-07-2001 and the said rejection was accepted by the Commissioner on 26-09-2001, the Deputy Commissioner called those 19 show cause notices from call book for taking decision and set aside these show cause notices vide above said Order-in-Original. Against the said Order-in-Original, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise filed the appeal before the Commi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

als)s order dated 04-07-2001 wherein the approval order of the classification passed vide Order-in-Original dated 31-07-1997 was upheld and the same has been accepted by the department pertains to the final approval of classification list No. 2/92-93 (w.e.f. 01-03-93), 23/93-94 (w.e.f. 01-04-93), 1/94-95 (w.e.f. 01-04-94), 2/94-95 (w.e.f. 20-03-95), 1/95-96 (w.e.f. 03-04-93), 1/95-96 (w.e.f. 10-05-95), 1/96-97 (w.e.f. 01-04-96), 1/97-98 (w.e.f. 04-04-97) and pertains to provisional assessment 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

peal before the Tribunal New Delhi. Therefore, this appeal may be decided on the merit of classification. On query from the bench, Ld. A.R. could not produce any status of appeal, despite the passing of more than 20 years of filing said appeal. 4. On the other hand Shri Mayur Shroff, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that in the present case, the Oder-in-Original was passed on the basis of finalization of the classification and upholding the same by the Commissioner (App .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of any out come in that case, no different view can be taken for the reason that order-in-original in the present case is based on the finalization of the classification list for a particular period, which attained finality. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) s finding on the facts are crystal clear which is reproduced below:- 4. I have carefully gone though the Review Application, written and oral submissions made by r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assified the disputed goods under S.H.N. 84714-.00. I find that in the instant appeal the Review Application is filed against OIO No. 93/10/2003-04 reveals that Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise in his findings has categorically intentioned that he has made base from OIA No. ZBN/375/M-V/2001 dated 04-7-2001. He has also mentioned that said OIA dated 4-7-2001 has been accepted by Commr., Cen.Ex. on 26-9-2001 i.e. the issue has been given finality by accepting the OIA. I find that in the absence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

over, the OIO No. V(90)17-CLPL-13/90 dated 27-08-93 relates to 13 show cause notices pertaining to period from 1-4-92 to 28-2-93; approved of Classification List 1/90 (w.e.f. 02-04-90), 1/91 (w.e.f. 02-04-91), 1/91 (w.e.f. 25-07-91), 1/91 (w.e.f. 25-07-91), 3/91-92 (w.e.f. 02-03-92), and 1/92-93 (w.e.f. 01-04-92) and denovo adjudication as per OIA No. KPS/1/696/B-II/92 dated 20-01-92. In the other words, if at all any appeal is pending in the CESTAT it will be effecting only these classification .....

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