GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 105 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2016 (4) TMI 105 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 209 (A. P.) - Recovery of duty payable - Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner on the ground of absence of recovery machinery, and that in the absence of any mechanism for recovery of the amount, the Commissioner of Central Excise ought not to have passed the order for recovery of duty payable by the respondent-Corporation - Held that:- On perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that the impugned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal, at the instance of Revenue, is directed against the order dated 09.02.2005 passed by CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. 2. Aggrieved by the order in O.R.No.6/2000 (de novo) dated 25.06.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur, holding the respondent liable to pay 8% on the price of the exempted goods i.e. Sulphuric Acid cleared by them under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the ground that the assessee had used the input i.e., Vanadium Pentoxide in respec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arguments on the merits of the case. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department sought to argue that the respondent-Corporation is engaged in the manufacture and clearances of Sulphuric Acid falling under Chapter Sub Heading No.2807.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and that the Sulphuric Acid which is chargeable to duty was also cleared by the unit at Nil rate of duty to M/s Fertilisers Corporation of India for usage in the fertilisers, and that the unit was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

without assigning reasons, the Tribunal had set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The learned counsel further submits that though at the time of adjudicating the matter, the amendment was not there, but the Government of India, vide Clause 82 of the Finance Act, 2005, read with provisions of Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, amended the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Rules retrospectively, i.e. with effect from 01.08.1996. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent- Co .....

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