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 →

Pawan Alloys And Casting Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I

2016 (3) TMI 776 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Determination of capacity of the appellant unit at 6.4 MT - Held that:- In view of the admitted fact that the furnace of capacity 3.0 MT was lying out of working condition and/or uninstalled, the learned Commissioner is in error taking the capacity of the same on the premises that as the furnaces was available in the factory premises, the same has to be considered for determining annual capacity. According to the rules only the furnace which is installed and put to use is required to be consider .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

we have decided the appeal on merits, we do not decide the points of law arising pursuant to amendment vide Finance Act, 2001. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/1415/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/70072/2016 - Dated:- 17-11-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J) And CJ Mathew, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri B L Narasimhan, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar (Joint Commissioner) AR ORDER Per Anil Choudhary The appellant Pawan Alloys & castings Pvt. Ltd. is in appeal agains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the sides. It has been observed by the Commissioner in the impugned Order that the Appellants had claimed abatement for the first time in their reply dated 28.11.2000. The learned Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that they have claimed abatement of duty from time to time and it is not correct to say that the abatement of duty on account of their factory remaining closed was claimed for the first time in their reply dated 28.11.2000. In support of his contention he has referred to variou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

99 after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellants and in accordance with law. The Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand." 3. Pursuant to remand the appellant moved before the learned Commissioner stating that the annual capacity of production was wrongly determined provisionally at 6.40 MT taking the two furnaces together of 3.0 MT and 3.4 MT determining the monthly duty levy at ₹ 10,66,667/- per month. It is the case of the appellant that the furnace of capac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the fact that the furnace having capacity 3.0 MT was lying sealed and not in working condition, as the same was lying uninstalled as taken notice of by learned Commissioner in para-16 of the impugned order, but have erred in concluding that as the furnace was available in the factory of production the same has to be included for determining the annual capacity, whether the furnace is working or not. Accordingly the claim of the appellant for re-determining the capacity at 3.4 MT instead of 6. .....

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