Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Inayat Global Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Jalandhar

2016 (8) TMI 283 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Applicability of trade notice dated 24.02.2014. - Requirement of physical control on the unit by jurisdictional officers on cigarette manufacturing unit Held that:- the trade notice is applicable to the unit which are working less than 50% of their capacity. Appellant is working more than 50% capacity in manufacture of cigarettes. Trade notice not applicable. No requirement of physical control by jurisdictional officers on unit of appellant Decided in favor of appellant. - E/60018/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the case are that the appellant is manufacturing of cigarettes. Trade Notice No. 01/Tech/ 2014 dt. 24.02.2014, was issued with regard to procedure of partial working or non working of machines of manufacturer of cigarettes. As per the said trade notice, if any manufacturing unit is operating at a capacity lower than 50% of the total machine hours, in the said case, the authorised officers by the Commissioner of Central Excise shall seal machine at the close of the day and shall de-sealed on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ine of cigarettes manufacturing units. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 4. The Id. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no provision in Central Excise Law that cigarettes manufactures are to be under physical control of the Jurisdictional Officers. Only, in the case the unit is functioning less than 50% of their manufacturing capacity, the trade notice issued on 24.02.2014 has laid down the procedure for working of units. Therefore, the said trade notice is n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ainst the trade notice is not maintainable in the light of the decision in the case of Vardhman SPG. & General Mills Ltd. 202 (150) ELT 855 (Tri. Del.) 6. Heard the parties and considered the submission in detail. 7. The objections of the Ld. AR is contrary to the facts of the case. As in the case of Vardhaman Spg. & General Mills Ltd. (Supra), the appellant challenged the trade notice but not in the case before me. In fact, the appellant has challenged the order followed by the trade no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version