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 →

ITEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT

2016 (4) TMI 981 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Demand of duty and imposition of penalty - Violation of provisions of Rules 13 and 14 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Failure to produce the proof of export within six months from the date of exportation in terms of Rule 14A - Held that:- the assessee made very persuasive submissions on the basis of the question of burden of proof and the impropriety in calling upon the assessee to prove the negatives regarding the export that was covered by the documents, it is seen that a different conclus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lisation of the result of the formalities carried forward in anticipation of the export. The adjudicating authority, the first appellate authority and the CESTAT having concluded as aforenoted on the basis of the materials on record, we do not find any substantial question of law or any other material on the basis of which we could, through an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, interfere at the instance of the assessee. - Decided against the assessee - C.E.Appeal.No. 5 of 2005 - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mposing demand of duty in relation to goods referred to in Annexure-B show cause notice and also for imposition of penalty. Identity of respective records and duty involved were enumerated in that show cause notice. The ground for the proposed action was footed on the reason that the assessee has violated the provisions of Rules 13 and 14 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as it has failed to produce the proof of export within six months from the date of exportation. In answer thereto, 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

assessee, it came to know later that the shop floor had assembled open market phones instead of export phones and that it was an error in executing the production plan, however that, this was not communicated to all concerned and, therefore, timely corrective action was not taken. The sum and substance of the plea is that though all excise formalities for exporting bond of the goods were carried out by the appropriate authorities, the production of proof of export in terms of Rules 13, 14 and 14 .....

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