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 L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

2016 (9) TMI 179 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Demand alongwith interest and penalty for the month of September, 1997 - duty liabiliy calculated on proportionate production capacity in respect of two furnaces - appellant contended that although they had two furnaces in their factory but only one was running in condition, and/or use - Held that:- it is an admitted fact that the appellant had intimated by their option letter that they will be operating only one furnace and it appears that Revenue failed to seal the other furnace. Accordingly, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11,857/- and any other payment if made. We further hold that in view of the Law clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills and others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT], the appellant is not liable to pay any interest and penalty. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - E/2700/2011[DB] - Final Order No. 70571/2016 - Dated:- 26-7-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Tec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion to pay duty on the basis of Annual Production Capacity (APC) under Rule 96 ZO(3) of CER, 1944. The appellant opted to discharge duty liability under Rule 96 ZO(3) of CER, 1944 vide their letter dated 26.08.1997. It is further case of the appellant that although they had two furnaces in their factory of about 4.5 M.T. each, they had mentioned in their application that only one was running in condition, and/or use. It is the further case of the appellant that the Ld. Commissioner failed to co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 751.080 M.T. of M.S. Ingots but had deposited ₹ 3,20,000/-only vide T.C. No.2/97-98 dated 2.9.1997. However, during August, 1997, the appellant had cleared 413.605 M.T. attracting duty @ 600/- per M.T. amounting to ₹ 2,48,163/- and has deposited a sum of ₹ 4,60,000/-. Thus, after adjusting the duty for the month of August, there was surplus of ₹ 2,11,837/- lying unutilized. Accordingly, Revenue issued S.C.N for duty not paid at ₹ 8,58,163/- (Rs. 15 lakhs -3,20,00 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Id. Commissioner, the appellant had preferred an appeal before this Tribunal, which was decided vide Final Order No.A/837/98-NB & M/219/98-NB dated 14.9.1998, whereby, this Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for passing a speaking order, and accordingly, no demand was tenable, on the basis of earlier order, fixing production capacity dated 19.3.1998. Pursuant to remand by this Tribunal vide Order-in-Original dated 20.2.2006, the Jt. Commissioner have considered the matter r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt to remand by this Tribunal, the Commissioner have passed Order No.05/Commr./Tech/05 dated 13.10.2005, wherein it is observed that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in his report dated 13.9.1997, have stated that the appellant was having two induction furnaces, two transformers and one standby crucible and both transformers were connected with the power supply. Thus, seeing entire arrangement and availability of two transformers connected with the power supply it is incorrect to say 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

ty to be discharged in accordance with the final APC fixed. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order, have been pleased to reject the appeal upholding the order of the Jt. Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds among others, that the demand is bad, in view of repeal or omission of Rule 96 ZO and 96 ZP of CER by Finance Act, 2001, and further urged that the impugned 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

venue had preferred CEA No.99 of 2015, before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and in final Order dated 31.5.2015, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dispose of the appeal with direction to this Tribunal to dispose of the appeal itself on merits within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, on receipt of the order of the Hon'ble High Court vide letter of Revenue dated 11.5.2015, received on 18.5.2015, the appeal was fixed for final hearing and notices we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngly, notice was served by affixture on 25.4.2016, in the presence of two independent witnesses, who had identified the premises. The copy of the report and the Panchanama drawn at the time of affixture of notice have been filed by the Revenue. Finding the service of notice in order, the service of notice is accepted as good. 6. When the case was called on the date fixed i.e. 27.5.2016, the Counsel for the appellant, on record Mr. Anil Kumar Dixit, stated that the appellant have taken back his c .....

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