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 →

M/s ICI India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

2015 (11) TMI 1551 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Imposition of penalty - Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules - acquisition of water treatment Plant and their filing of declaration under Rule 57 T to avail credit on capital goods, which will be used in the manufacture of water treatment Plant, and as the activity amounts of manufacture - evasion of duty - Held that:- in the case of erection of water treatment Plant, this Tribunal have held, designing supplying the components and erecting the water treatment Plant at the site of assessee/appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as, Deputy Commissioner (AR) ORDER The appellant ICI India Ltd is in appeal against order-in-appeal No. 30-CE/APPL/KNP/06 dated 19/01/2006 by which penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules amounting to Rs. One lakh, have been confirmed. 2. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of Fertilizer catalyst. They got erected water treatment Plant which was designed, supplied & erected in their factory by Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. the erection and commissioning of the Pla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t plant. It was further explained that invoices were raised for raisin, pressure vessel, PLC, Control Panel, cabling, design and engineering charges as well as accessories and the plant had been commissioned by Ion Exchange personnel with the materials supplied by them under their own supervision. It appeared to revenue that the supply of the entire components of the water treatment plant, assemblies/erection of such components, commissioning of such plant, lied in the hands of Ion Exchange and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder the Rules. 4. The appellant contested the show cause notice both on merits and on limitation and the same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 29/05/2003 wherein penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to confirm the penalty observing that the acquisition of water treatment Plant by the appellant and their filing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing of this Tribunal in their own case, by a division bench of this Tribunal reported at 2002 (150) ELT 1235 wherein under the similar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal following the Larger Bench s decision in the appellant s own case being final Order No. 790/2002 dated 16/07/2002, upheld the contention of Ion Exchange and set aside the demand and penalty against the appellant and other connected persons, holding the erected water treatment Plant as an immovable . The said ruling is report .....

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