Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Fine Industries Mr. Mohammed Taher Shareef Versus CC & CE, Hyderabad-III

2016 (6) TMI 1017 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Demand of excise duty - bonafide belief that manufacture of threaded roof bolts and nuts are not liable to duty of excise - exclusion of bought out items - manufacturing of threaded roof bolts and nuts - levy of penalty - Held that:- We find that the contention of the appellant that CENVAT credit has to be allowed on inputs and that bought out items have to be excluded from the demand raised is reasonable and acceptable. The credit admissible on inputs and value of bought out items has to be com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

While confirming the demand of duty with interest, penalty set aside. - Decided partly in favor of assessee. - E/131 & 132/2007 - A/30383-30384/2016 - Dated:- 17-5-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, CS., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri R. Raghavendra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Saxena, Commissioner (AR) for the respondent. ORDER Brief facts : - a. The appellants are manufacturers of threaded roof bolts and nuts and they were registered as SSI unit. The .....

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 in appeal No. 131/2007 was recorded. He stated that appellants were engaged in manufacturing various sizes of roof bolts and nuts which is used in coal mines. Their turnover was approximately ₹ 30 to 40 lakhs per annum, but for the first time, they were given an order of ₹ 4.6 crores by M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. (SCCL). A show-cause notice was issued to appellant proposing to demand ₹ 35,55,127/- being the duty of roof bolts & nuts manufactured and cleare .....

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 an SSI unit registered with DIC, Kareemnagar. The activity involved cutting of torsteel rods/ ribbed bar to required length and one end of each rod is threaded to 100mm width and other end is slightly tapered by forging process i.e. heating and hammering. The process did not amount to manufacture as no new product is emerged. These are used in the underground mines for supporting the roof. That they were under bona fide belief that these manual operations did not entail duty. d. After adjudica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eedings initiated against M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. was dropped. e. The issue was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide the order impugned herein, the commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original rejecting the appeal. The appellants are thus before the Tribunal. f. At the time of hearing the learned counsel Shri R. Raghavendra appearing for the appellant submitted that during the time of filing the appeal, in an identical case, in respect of M/s A.P. Heavy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot contesting the issue of excisability/levy of excise duty on impugned goods. 2. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the challenge in present appeals is now limited to allow CENVAT credit on the inputs (steel rods), exclusion of bought out items and also to set aside the penalties and redemption fine imposed. We therefore are confining to the discussion of these issues only. 3. The learned AR Shri Ajay Saxena fairly conceded that the appellant is entitled to credit of inputs used i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

missible on inputs and value of bought out items has to be computed in order to determine the duty payable by appellants. 5. In addition, the appellant has urged to set aside the penalties imposed. It is submitted by appellants that they were under bona fide belief that the activity did not amount to manufacture. They had obtained SSI registration. But for the single order obtained from SCCL, they would fall within SSI unit. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in an identical issue had held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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