Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 776 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2016 (3) TMI 776 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - TMI - 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 install .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issioner in terms of the impugned order. As 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) - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ions of both 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 refer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al year 1998-99 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 fur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te of admitting 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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