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

2016 (5) TMI 938 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (5) TMI 938 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 484 (Tri. - Del.) - 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 respo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons have been made at UPRNN side to link -up the possible dealings of the main 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 Peti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

certain inquiry and investigation, the Department initiated proceedings against 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  .....

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 in their financial transactions as they are preferred by the main 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 .....

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