Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Mipco Seamless Rings Ltd Versus Commissioner, C. Ex. & S. Tax, Vadodara-II

2016 (5) TMI 898 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Demand of differential duty - Incorrect determination of assessable value of finished goods - failed to include the cost of drawing and design charges in the assessable value of the Seamless Rings - Appellant contended that after this Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority they had filed a refund clai seeking refund of the duty deposited pursuant to this Tribunal's Order in disposing their stay application. - Held that:- pursuant to this Tribunal's Order refund has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appellant before the Assistant Commissioner while claiming the refund, the evidences now produced before this Tribunal, and the evidences that would be produced during the course of denovo proceeding. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - Appeal No. E/1628/2008-DB - Order No. A/10382/2016 - Dated:- 4-5-2016 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant: Shri H.D. Dave, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri T.K. Sikdar, A.R. ORDER PER: DR. D.M. MISRA H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,364.63 short paid alleging incorrect determination of assessable value of finished goods; in as much as the Appellant had failed to include the cost of drawing and design charges in the assessable value of the Seamless Rings . The matter had travelled to this Tribunal. After considering the issue whether the value of drawing and design charges be includable in the assesable value of Seamless Rings, remanded the matter vide Order dt.25.03.1998 for verification of facts, observing as follows:- 9. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anded the matter to the adjudicating by its Order dt.25.03.1998 they had filed a refund claim on 30.09.1998 seeking refund of the duty deposited pursuant to this Tribunals Order dt.17.6.1992 in disposing their stay application. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had allowed the refund of ₹ 2,23,642.81 and ₹ 35,000.00, taking into consideration the amount involved on the unmachined rings and the differential duty paid on machined rings pursuant of to the Order of the Tribun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

butable to unmachined rings, particularly the purchase order/agreement with their customers. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Adjudicating authority. 6. The Ld. Adv. vehemently argued that only after verification/scrutiny of evidences produced, the Assistant Commissioner, deducting their duty liability on account of drawing and design charges relating to machined rings, refunded ₹ 2,23,642.81 against the initial deposit of ₹ 3,00,000. It is his contention .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version