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 Standard Consultants Ltd Hyderabad Versus Commissioner Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II

2016 (9) TMI 121 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Refund claim - eligibility for concessional rate of additional duty of 5% - notification no. 21/2002-CE dated 1st March 2002 – ignorance of order of the Tribunal no. 1112/2008 dated 1st September 2008 by appellate authority - certificate by chartered accountant furnished that burden of duty not passed – principle of unjust enrichment – Held that: - It is surprising that a senior officer discharging functions as Commissioner (Appeals) appears to be bereft of knowledge of judicial hierarchies 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

l). Shri D V Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Ajay Saxena, AR for the Respondent. ORDER: Per: C J Mathew 1. These appeals have been filed by M/s Standard Consultants Ltd against the order-in-appeal no. 58 and 59 of 2010 (H-II) dated 27th August 2010 and 7/2013(H-II)-Cus. dated 29th January, 2013 of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad which has held the appellant to be ineligible for concessional rate of additional duty of 5% extended by notification 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

hat the Hon ble CESTAT vide the said Final order has misread and misinterpreted the para 3 of the general rules for interpretation of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, i.e with regard to the basic customs duty whether at standard rate as mentioned at column 4 or at preferential rate of duty as mentioned at column 5 of the said Tariff in first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act,1975. Hence, it is clear that the said rules and its para 3 is not applicable to the additional duty o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issue in view of the provisions contained in Notification No.21/2002-cus dated 01-03-2002. 3. It would appear that the first appellate authority, despite being aware of the order of the Tribunal no. 1112/2008 dated 1st September 2008 chose to ignore it and went on to render his own findings which are contrary to that of the Tribunal. The ostensible ground for doing so is that Revenue has filed an appeal against the said order in the Hon ble Supreme Court and hence has not attained finality. He .....

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