Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Forum Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News What's New Calendar Imp. Links Database More...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex. & Cus., Aurangabad

Includibility of value of flaps in the assessable value of tyres and tubes - Demand already paid by the appellant but same was not paid under protest - whether value of flaps is not includible in the assessable value of tyres and tubes - Held that:- Once the demand is set aside for any reason, amount already paid cannot be held as validly paid and cannot be justified on merit. We are of the view that the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order on one hand holding that va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ri V.K. Shastri, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ramesh Nair, Member (J)]. - The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BPS/(408) 181A/13470/2004, dated 16-12-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad, wherein ld. Commissioner confirmed demand of ₹ 4,04,487/- however set aside the demand of ₹ 1,04,507/- and appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of accordingly. The fact of the case is that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 from time to time, however one permission letter bearing F. No. V CH 40 (10) 72/TB/92/Pt-1, dated 17-8-1999 contains condition No. (10) i.e. value of flaps should be included in the assessable value of tyres and tubes at the time of clearance. The appellant without taking note of such condition kept on clearing the tyres and tubes without including the value of flaps, therefore investigation was carried out, during which statement of Shri R.M. Kulkarni, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 1,64,508/- under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. (b) Confirmation of Central Excise duty amounting ₹ 4,04,487/- and appropriation thereof as said amount already paid by the appellant. (c) Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (d) Charging of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant represented their defence on merit as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ropriated against the aforesaid amount of confirm demand. The noticee should pay the remaining amount of ₹ 1,64,508/-. (ii) I impose total penalty of ₹ 5,68,995/- on M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. (Unit: Balkrishna Tyres), B-66, Waluj, Aurangabad under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. (iii) I confirm the recovery of interest at applicable rate under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 from M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. (Unit: Balkrishna Tyres), B-66, Waluj, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emsp;Shri Prashant Paranjape, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as regard issue of inclusion of value of flaps and total duty due thereupon was investigated and consequent to the investigation appellant paid duty of ₹ 4,04,487/- and subsequently show cause notice was issued and the same is culminated in the adjudication order. He submits that appellant has defended the case right from adjudication stage uptill the stage of this appeal on merit. Therefore the amount paid by them mu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egorically held that the value of flaps is not includible in the assessable value of tyres and tubes. It is his submission that once the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that value of flaps is not includible in the assessable value of the tyres and tubes, there is no other option except to drop the entire demand on the value of flaps. He submits that present case is against demand proceedings and not case of refund. The refund will arise only consequent to the outcome of this appeal proceedings. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r submits that the value of flaps was correctly includible in the assessable value of tyres and tubes. He submits that issue on merit whether the value of flaps should be included or otherwise in the assessable value of tyres and tubes was not challenged by the appellant and duty paid was not under protest therefore the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly confirmed the demand of ₹ 4,04,487/-. He placed reliance on the judgment in case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner of Centr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ory. It is observed that the appellant after commencement of the investigation paid duty of ₹ 4,04,487/-. After completion of investigation a show cause notice was issued on the issue of merit wherein it was proposed to confirmed demand of ₹ 4,04,487/- and appropriation thereof as said amount was already paid by the appellant and amount of ₹ 1,64,508/- was also proposed to be demanded which was not paid by the appellant. The appellant defended the show cause notice but in the a .....

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 value of flaps is not includible in the assessable value of tyres and tubes. This part of the order was not challenged by the Revenue therefore the same attained finality. Since both the demand i.e. ₹ 4,04,487/- and ₹ 1,64,508/- were covered under show cause notice and the appellant have been challenging these amounts right from the show cause notice stage, payment of ₹ 4,04,487/- shall be deemed to have been made under protest. Moreover, once the ld. Commissioner (Appeals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dispatched the same along with tyres and tubes for which necessary permissions was granted under Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad. The period involved in the show cause notice is from August, 1999 to 22-2-2001. The details are given as under :- F. No. & date under which permission was granted Validity of the permission Whether permission includes the condition of inclusion of value of Flaps in A.V. VGN 40(10)73 TN/92 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce of value of the flaps is not required to be added in the assessable value. To support their say they placed reliance upon the case laws cited in the grounds of appeal and at the time of personal hearing. Therefore, the condition laid down for recovery of duty on the value of the flap is not as per the law. The ratio of the case laws cited by the Appellants is squarely applicable in the instant case. The amount already paid by the Appellants cannot be interfered as the same is not paid under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ession or misstatement of facts etc. Therefore, on the limitation also the case does not survive. As the demand of duty itself is not sustainable, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q and demand of interest under Section 11AB is not sustainable. 7. In view of the above, I am inclined to accept the contentions of the Appellants. I, therefore, set aside the confirmation of demand worth ₹ 1,04,507/- and imposition of penalty and demand of interest. Since the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessable value of tyres and tubes, the demand of duty on such value of flaps would not sustain irrespective of fact whether such duty was already paid either under protest or otherwise. The entire proposal of demand and confirmation thereof by the adjudicating authority is on the root cause of includibility of value of flaps in the assessable value of tyres and tubes. When the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that value of flaps is not includible, such root stands cut and therefore every propo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ess as not borne on any tangible evidences rather there is no averment or any material which can create any doubt on bona fide of the assessee s action. Therefore, the notice issued on 10th September, 2004 as well as corrigendum dated 7th June, 2005 and 28th July, 2005 were without any authority of law and are held to be not justified. Thus, the total sum of ₹ 10,34,098/- was honoured by the physical payment by the party on its own volition i.e. without challenge and protest, which was lev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e notice dated 10-9-2004 as same was due in terms of the circular dated 6-2-2001. When the parent notice of demand dated 10-9-2004 itself was barred by limitation holding the corrigendum as legal, proper or valid, does not arise. Those were without authority of law. To that extent, the submission of the ld. Counsel and the reliance on case laws as extracted above is very much relevant and are apt to the fact and circumstances of the present case. There, the question of penalty does not arise. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, jacking them with further liabilities after limitation period is over, is not justified and cannot be maintained and sustained. Therefore, the proceedings started by issuance of show cause notice dated 10-9-2004 and tried to be fortified or enhanced by corrigendum are held to be inappropriate and illegal. Thus, demands and other proposed cause of actions are barred by limitation as provided under provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. After considering the facts and the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is to be seen that the Revenue authorities have not filed any appeal against the said Order-in-Original nor they have filed any cross objection against such findings of the adjudicating authority as regards the demand is hit by limitation. In the absence of any objection of appeal from the department, the findings of the adjudicating authority as regard the limitation have attained finality. If that be so, any amount deposited by the assessee during the pe .....

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 reasoning is self contradictory. The amount paid was part of duty, demanded in the show cause notice, which was clearly held to be beyond time. Once the demand was held unsustainable, no amount of duty could have been treated as leviable. 6.2 In the aforesaid view, the appeal is devoid of merits raising no substantial question of law. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of the above judgment, it is clear that once the demand is set aside for any reason, amount already .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

  ↓     Latest Happening     ↓  

Forum: 3B mistake

Highlight: It is open to the Settlement Commission to use best judgment in arrival of the figure. Nonetheless it has to explain the manner in which the best judgment figure has been arrived at by the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - advances given to societies - in the absence of legal right of the assessee in the said society the amount advanced cannot be treated as deemed income.

Highlight: When electrical installations are treated as plant and machinery the depreciation has to be allowed @ 25% as per provisions contained u/s 32

Forum: GST return filing software online | Easy GST compliance management

Forum: Input credit of gst paid on urd

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Input tax credit

TMI Note: Capital Gain - transfer of right in the land or transfer of land itself - addition u/s 50C - Harassment to the honest tax payers

Highlight: Option to avail composition scheme under GST by electronically filing an intimation in FORM GST CMP-02 and FORM GST ITC-03 upto 30-9-2017 - See Rule 3(3A)

Forum: GST on Notional rent

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 11 to 13.

Highlight: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability - CBDT issues draft notification

TMI Note: Certain ICDS provisions are inconsistent with judicial precedents. Whether these judicial precedents would prevail over ICDS.

Highlight: Provisions of ICDS shall prevail w.e.f. AY 2017-18 to the transactional issues dealt therein over earlier judicial pronouncements.

Notification: Levy of anti dumping duty on New/unused pneumatic radial tyres with or without tubes and/or flap of rubber (including tubeless tyres) having normal rim dia code above 16 originating in, or exported from China PR

News: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability

TMI Note: In case of conflict between ICDS and other specific provisions of the Income-tax rules, 1962 governing taxation of income like rules 9A, 9B etc. of the Rules, which provisions shall prevail.

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply to computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act or Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JC of the Act.

TMI Note: Where a term has not been defined under ICDS, nor under the Act, but has different interpretations given to it by the courts in tax cases, and in ICAI Accounting Standards, which interpretation would prevail while interpreting ICDS.

TMI Note: Whether the provisions of ICDS apply to a non-resident who claims the benefit of a double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA).

TMI Note: In case any of the ICDS provisions is contrary to a circular or press release issued by the CBDT, which would prevail over the other.

TMI Note: ICDS-I requires disclosure of significant accounting policies and other ICDS requires specific disclosures. Where is the taxpayer required to make such disclosures specified in ICDS.

Notification: Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) - New ICDS to be effective from AY 2017-18

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Highlight: GST - Detention of goods under transport - discrepancy in documents - the statutory provisions provide a mechanism for adjudication following detention of goods including for the provisional release thereof pending adjudication - HC

Highlight: Reassessment - first few paragraphs of the assessment order dealt with objections and disposed of accordingly - Unfortunately, the manner in which the AO has decided the issue is wholly unsustainable in law - HC

Highlight: Business expenditure u/s 37 - liquidated damage - breach of contract terms - Expenditure was not incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law - cannot be disallowed - HC

Highlight: Valuation - inclusion of reimbursement of expenses - managing participation of clients in certain mela, fairs, promotional activities etc. - They are liable to service tax on the gross amount received - They cannot restrict their tax liability to only agency commission

Highlight: TDS liability - ITAT confirmed the liability - We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion - HC

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - sufficiency of material available with the AO to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - bogus purchases - seller refused to respond - notice would not be interfered with - HC

Highlight: Exemption u/s 11 - education activities - transport and hostel facilities surplus cannot be considered as business income of the assessee society

News: Draft Notification for insertion of new rule 39A in the Income-tax Rules, 1962 comments and suggestions-reg.

Highlight: Genuineness of labour wages expenses, embroidery charges, fabrication expenses etc. - getting work done through small workmen who do not have any permanent place of residence - disallowance of ad hoc expenditure deleted.

Highlight: Project import - Since the goods were never used for the purpose for which it was imported, the actual user condition has been violated - Redemption fine and penalty imposed.

Highlight: Penalty u/s 112 (a) - CHA - Lack of due diligence and failure to take more precautions can not, by itself, bring in penal consequences

Highlight: Import of services - GST - The fact that those services were received outside India will not change the fact that the services have been paid for by the beneficiary appellant, who is located in India. - Demand confirmed.

Notification: SEZ for IT/ITES at Madhurwada Village, Visakhapatnam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh - denotified.

Highlight: Merely because payment is received in Indian rupee, it cannot be said that payment against export has not been received in convertible foreign exchange.

Highlight: Merely vehicle numbers was not mentioned on the invoices cannot be the reason to deny Cenvat Credit

Highlight: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - Circular

Circular: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017

News: Auction for Sale (Re-issue) of Government Stocks

Article: TDS APPLICABILITY ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS UNDER GST (Under Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017)

News: Manmohan takes potshots at note ban, 'hasty' rollout of GST

News: GST on petrol, diesel requires wider discussion: Nitish

Article: WHEN CAN ONE TAKE ITC FOR RCM CASES?

Notification: TDS liability under Section 51 of CGST, 2017 come into force w.e.f. 18-9-2017 - Persons liable to deduct TDS from payment made or credited to the supplier of taxable goods or services specified

Notification: Central Goods and Services Tax (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2017

Notification: Seeks to extend the last date for filing the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of August to December, 2017



|| 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