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 Mawthlliang Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong

2016 (9) TMI 185 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

Fixation of Special Rate of the Actual Value Addition in terms of Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 - Commissioner rejected the application only on the ground of period of limitation - Held that:- Commissioner of Excise, Shillong has failed to examine the reasons assigned by the petitioner and has also failed to consider the requirements that ordinarily, the matters are preferred to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. The petitioner had given out all the reasons in a fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 days of moving the application and well within the period of 30 days, the extent to which the Commissioner has been authorized to condone the delay and to consider the matter on merits. In the totality of circumstances, the respondent has rightly not attempted to justify the order impugned that does not carry the requisite reasons and requisite consideration. - Therefore, the application moved by the petitioner for Fixation of Special Rate, as presented on 01.10.2015 and supported by the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

id to be engaged in manufacture of Veneer falling under Chapter 44 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, has questioned the order dated 28.01.2016 as passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong [ the Commissioner ] on its application for Fixation of Special Rate of the Actual Value Addition in terms of Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 (as amended). By the order impugned, the Commissioner has rejected the application so made by the petitioner only on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by their statutory auditor showing the rate of their value addition as 54.40%, were submitted to this office on 16.10.2015 as is evident from the Commissionerate date- receipt stamp embossed on the Applicant s letter. 6. Notification No. 20/2007 CE dated 25.04.2007 stipulates that- the manufacture may apply to the commissioner of Central excise or the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the manufacturing unit of the manufacturer for fixation 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

the 30th day of September in a financial year for determination of such special rate, stating all relevant facts including the proportion in which the material or components are used in the production or manufacture of goods. Provided that the Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be, may if he is satisfied that the manufacturer was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the aforesaid time, allow such manufacturer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Notification No 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 (as amended) for the Financial Year 2015-16 is accordingly rejected as it is barred by time limit. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in fact, the requisite application for Special Rate was submitted on 30.09.2015 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong but then, it was noticed that the application ought to have been filed in the Commissioner s office. According to the petitioner, when the steps 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

Tax return upto 31.10.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that there had not been any intentional delay on the part of the petitioner and in any case, when the application was filed on 01.10.2015 and the requisite documents were also filed on 16.10.2015 while explaining the delay, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong ought to have entertained the application so as to consider the matter on merits in terms of the proviso to the Notification No.20/2007-CE da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e petitioner towards delay and not considering the matter on merits are, of course, not available in the order impugned. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are clearly of the view that the Commissioner of Excise, Shillong has failed to examine the reasons assigned by the petitioner and has also failed to consider the requirements that ordinarily, the matters are preferred to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. The petitioner had given out all the reaso .....

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