GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1124 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (5) TMI 1124 - CESTAT KOLKATA - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 587 (Tri. - Kolkata) - Valuation - additions / deductions from the assessable value u/s 4 - Quantification of duty liability - whether appellant has correctly calculated duty liability of ₹ 6,35,26,796/- based on remittances made to Joint Plant Committee (JPC) or the duty liability should be ₹ 11,17,74,702/- as calculated by the Adjudicating authority? - Held that:- As per the procedure prescribed all the member Steel Plants, inc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld have asked the appellant to remit the same but department can not calculate a figure to add to the assessable value on their own based on RT-12 returns. Appellant has calculated on amount of ₹ 6,35,26,796/- based on remittances made to JPC based on certain receipts issued by JPC without supported by a chartered / cost accountant certificate. It is also observed from Para- 5 of Stay order passed by this bench that department had ample powers under the statute to Summon & Call for necessa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand of ₹ 11, 17, 74,702/- calculated by the department is not sustainable. Needles to say that an opportunity of personal hearing should be extended to the appellant to substantiate their claim based on documents / certificate suggested above as to how much JPC levies have been remitted to JPC during the relevant period. - Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority for deciding the issue of quantification of demand in the light of observ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/KOL/06/ dt 25/5/2006 passed by this bench. 2. Dr. Samir Chakraborty (Advocate) & Sh. Abhijit Biswas (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Learned Advocate Sh. Samir Chakraborty submitted that appellant ,interalia, claimed deduction of certain JPC levies ; consisting of Steel Development Fund (SDF) , Engineering Goods Export Assistance Fund (EGEAF) and GPC cess ; paid directly by the appellant to Joint Plant Committee (JPC) as per Notification dated 16/01/1992. & Notification S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h April 1971, as amended by the notification dated 16th January 2002, were not admissible deductions under section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as such, had to be included in determining the assessable values of the specified iron and steel products for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty thereon. 2.1 Only with respect to correct quantification of duty, by including JPC levies into the assessable value, the matter was remanded by Apex Court to CESTAT & vide order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e appellant is not justified. That JPC levies remitted by appellant are available at Pages 107 to 119 & Pages 133 to 144 of the paper book. 3. Sh. S. Mukherjee Supdt (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the bench go through a letter dt 8/8/2006 written by DC, CEx Dn-I, Jamshedpur to the appellant for giving the following details for arriving at the actual duty liability in respect of JPC levies.:- (i) The basis for considering a major portion of product as Non-JPC category. A letter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/- pmt and ₹ 3 pmt. Which is common for all articles to which it applies, does not appear to have been taken by Tisco. For some products it was not taken at all. This was to be corrected. (iv) For the period April -94 to August- 94 very few articles have been taken into consideration, while as per JPC minutes, it appears to apply to all articles mentioned in the Annexure -II, III & IV to the minutes. (v) For Chapter 86 goods there was no dispute and Tiscos figures matched with Departm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s correct. Learned AR thus strongly defended the order passed by the Adjudicating authority & argued that no certificate from JPC has been produced to the effect as to how much JPC levies have been received by JPC from the appellant. 4. Heard both sides & perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether appellant has correctly calculated duty liability of ₹ 6,35,26,796/- based on remittances made to JPC or the duty liability should be ₹ 11,17 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Iron & Steel (Control) order 1956, that JPC may require from time to time that member Steel Plants may add the elements of levies to their ex-works prices of the notified items and to remit the same to the committee. As per the, above procedure prescribed all the member Steel Plants, including the present appellant were required to remit JPC levies to the Joint Plant Committee. Under this factual matrix department was not right in asking the appellant to provide certain information on produ .....

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