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 →

CCE, Meerut-II Versus M/s. M.B. Plywood Industries (P) Ltd.

2016 (5) TMI 938 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation - Sale through dealers - short payment of central excise duty by adopting much lower price than the stipulated by the legal provisions for sale of goods to two of their dealers - Revenue contended that two dealers, who supplied items to UPRNN have realized much more amount than what they paid to the main respondent (the manufacturer). Also there are certain instances of receipt of payment directly by main respondent from UPRNN and such receipt being much higher than the price at which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in respondent directly with UPRNN and to establish the role of SJT and SJE being mere dummies in these transactions and there is nothing on record warranting interference with the said findings. - Decided against the revenue - Excise Appeals Nos.E/428, 429, 430 and 431/2007 - Final Order No.50203-50206/2016 - Dated:- 9-2-2016 - SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri G.R. Singh, DR For the Respondent : Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst the respondent on the ground of short payment of central excise duty by adopting much lower price for sale of goods to two of their dealers M/s. Shri Ji Traders, Lucknow (SJT) and M/s. Shri Ji Enterprises, Lucknow (SJE), who in turn, supplied the materials to M/s. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. on much higher price. The proceedings concluded by order dated 17.03.2005. The Original Authority confirmed a demand of ₹ 16,28,147/- towards differential duty, imposed equal penalty and furthe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ain respondent for supply of materials to M/s. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.(UPRNN). There is a huge difference between the sale price of main respondent and the price collected by the dealers from UPRNN. This difference has not been satisfactorily explained. There are instances of UPRNN paying directly to the main respondent on some of the sales. 4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent supported the findings in the impugned orders and submitted that the two dealers are not related to the main appell .....

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