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

2016 (4) TMI 770 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (4) TMI 770 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Whether appellant can defy payments of its own assessment done in the ER-1 and does not pay the entire duty assessed by him - Appellant filed a revised ER-1 return to argue that duty payable was actually less than what was calculated in the ER-1 return - Held that:- no provision of the Central Excise law has been brought to the notice of the Bench whether any such adjustment can be done in the case of Central Excise duty payment. In the absence of any su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erefore it is not a violation with intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, penalty imposed is set aside. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No.EA-608/12 - Order No.FO/A/75242/2016 - Dated:- 4-4-2016 - SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Deepro Sen, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K.Chowdhury, Supdt.(AR) ORDER PER SHRI H.K.THAKUR. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.28/HAL/2012 dated 05.06.2012 under which Commiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

indicated duty of ₹ 29.60 Crore as paid but actually the duty payable and paid in the relevant period was only ₹ 29,53,22,566/-. That a Show Cause Notice dated 03.09.2008, within the normal period of limitation, was issued to the Appellant to pay differential Central Excise duty of ₹ 6,83,131/- on account of duty payable calculations done by the Appellant in the ER-1 returns. Ld.Advocate argued that they filed a revised return with the department, but the lower authorities hav .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oval Procedure. That if in the opinion of the Appellant there was any excess payment during the relevant period then the only course left was to seek refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ld.AR therefore strongly defended the Orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. As a counter to the arguments made by the ld.AR Shri Deepro Sen (Advocate) relied upon the case law of Parle Products Pvt.Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bangalore-III [2015 (330) ELT .....

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