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

2016 (4) TMI 798 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (4) TMI 798 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- The first reason as to why the appeals ought not to have been filed by the Department is that the order of the Tribunal was passed upon production of necessary documentary proof and confirmation of the same by both sides. Also admittedly, there was a huge excess amount, available with the Department and what was sought to be done on 30.6.2006 was only an adjustment out of the same. Under Section 11 of the Centra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

18-3-2016 - V. Ramasubramanian And K. Ravichandrabaabu, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V. Sundareswaran, SPC For the Respondent : Mr. N. Viswanathan JUDGMENT ( Judgment Was Delivered By V. Ramasubramanian,J ) These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and were admitted on 28.1.2011 on the following two substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that no interest can be demanded for the differential duty not paid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

second respondent. 3. The facts, out of which, the above appeals arise, can be briefly stated as follows : (a) The second respondent has two units, one of which is a transmission tower line unit and the other is a re-rolling mill situated in the same compound holding different central excise manufacturing registrations. (b) It is claimed that the metal section parts manufactured by re-rolling mill were transferred to the tower line unit on payment of duty and used in the manufacture of transmis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same time, there had been huge excess amount during the very same period. (e) On 1.4.2006, both the units namely tower line unit and re-rolling mill got merged as a single excise unit and the same was approved by the Assistant Commissioner. (f) It appears that on 30.6.2006, the Department requested the assessee to remit the differential amount for the closure of the audit and the assessee obliged, as it merely involved adjustment from out of their own CENVAT credit. It is relevant to note that t .....

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