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 →

M/s. Ozla Plastooraft (P) Ltd. And Shri Manjeet Singh Director Versus C.C.E. Delhi-II

2016 (4) TMI 279 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty liability and imposition of penalty - Moulds manufactured and captively used - Demand is for payment of duty on the various invoices raised by the appellant to receive payment from the buyers in respect of such moulds - Moulds not cleared out of the appellant's unit - Held that:- in view of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. vs CCE, Ahmedabad [2002 (9) TMI 140 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI], the exemption for captive consumption cannot be denied if the capit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such demand are also not sustainable. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Excise Appeal No. E/646-647/2007-Ex[DB] - Final Order No. 50217-50218 /2016 - Dated:- 11-2-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Singh (Advocate) For the Respondent : Mr. S. Nanthuk, DR ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: These two appeals are against order dated 12.12.2006 of Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi-II. The main appellant is engaged in ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amortization cost of such moulds in the plastic parts cleared to the customers. Proceedings were initiated against them to demand and recovery Central Excise duty, the Original Authority vide order dated 5.9.2005 confirmed the demand for ₹ 5,61,330/- and imposed equal amount of penalty on the main appellant. Equal amount of penalty was also imposed on the Managing Director, the second appellant in the present case. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of duty except f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have been raised for that. As long as the moulds are used by the appellant in further manufacture of plastic parts they are eligible for the said exemption. There is no clearance of such moulds during the impugned period. Regarding additional value of plastic parts due to amortization of the cost of the moulds, the Ld. Counsel accepted the duty liability. He stated that the said amount has already been paid. 3. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. He relied on 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

 

 

 

 

 

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