Home List
← Previous	Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Versus Vikrant Auto Industries

2016 (9) TMI 322 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Whether the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) fell into error in omitting delayed payments of duty through CENVAT contrary to Rule 8(3A) - Held that:- it is noticed that there is absolutely no dispute about two critical elem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he circumstance that Rule 8 (3A) itself has been struck down and is no longer in existence, which we entirely concur with, we find no infirmity with the CESTAT’s order. No question of law arises. - Decided against the Revenue - CEAC 4/2016, CM APPL. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be urged in the present case is whether the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) fell into error in omitting delayed payments of duty through CENVAT contrary to Rule 8 (3A). The brief facts are that the liability of the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0/-. Undisputedly, the respondent had ₹ 3,27,000/- lying in its CENVAT credit. Its explanation was that there was an error in his computer system which could be detected only later. The assessee paid the balance amount of duty on 19.12.2012 tog .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X