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

2016 (5) TMI 1050 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (5) TMI 1050 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Whether grey fabric manufactured by the appellants and sent by them to the job worker is required to be treated as intermediate products so as to invoke provision of rule 16(B) - Held that:- the issue is no more res integra. By following the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Valentino Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur [2008 (2) TMI 806 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the grey fabric manufactured by the assessee out of duty paid yarn and cleared to the job .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Neha Meena, Advocate for the Applicants Ms. Neha Garg, DR for the Respondent ORDER All the appeals, some filed by the assessee and other by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner. 2. As per the facts on record the assessee are engaged in the manufacture of grey fabric from the duty paid yarn, on which they have taken the credit. Su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the appellant cannot be considered to be intermediate goods so as to apply the provisions of rule 16(B). As per the revenue the grey fabric are required to be considered as the final excisable goods and were required to be cleared on payment of duty. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show cause notice. 4. The said show cause notice culminated into the present impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Vide his order, the Adjudicating Authority observe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was less than duty required to be paid on grey fabric he dropped the demand. Further, by observing that in as much as appellant were working with the permission from the Commissioner in terms of Rule 16(B), which permission according to the Adjudicating authority was wrongly granted, he did not impose any penalty on the assessee. The said impugned order stands appealled against by the appellants as also by the Revenue against that portion of the order vide which he has confirmed only the differ .....

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