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

2016 (8) TMI 38 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (8) TMI 38 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Interest on delayed payment of differential duty - period of limitation - demand of interest issued after 3 years - At the time of clearance, the Appellants adopted the CAS-4 data of previous year to arrive at the cost of production, and on receipt of the actual data, they re-determined the assessable value and paid the differential duty. - Held that:- It is the contention of the Appellant now before this forum is that the demand for interest since issu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.Tax, Vadodara-I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 27, 28, 31 & 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellants, during the period April 2007 to March 2009 manufactured and cleared the excisable goods viz. Caprolactum (crystalline), Caprolactum (flakes) and Sulphuric Acid to their other units by determining the assessable value in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present Appeal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri Willingdon Christian for the Appellant submitted that even though the differential duty was determined on recalculated assessable value and paid during the period 2007 to 2009, the demand for interest was issued to them in 2012. It is his contention that the demand is b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entative reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the Appellant had paid the differential duty after re-calculation of the assessable value adopting the actual data relevant for the period during which goods were cleared. It is also not in dispute that even though the differential duty was paid, the Appellant had not discharged the interest on the differential duty. It is the contention of the Appellant .....

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