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 →

CCE, Ludhiana Versus M/s Kohinoor Rubber Mills

2016 (9) TMI 530 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Demand - goods lost in fire during the pendency the claim of remission of duty - Revenue claimed that they have conveyed the order of rejection of claim of remission of duty on 04.12.2012 and claim of the respondent is that no intimation was given prior to 11.12.2012 - Held that:- there is factual error either both of the sides, therefore, both the sides were asked to file an affidavit in support of their claim. As directed by this Tribunal, the respondent filed an affidavit that till 11.12.2012 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on order of demanding duty from the respondent is pre mature. - Appeal disposed of - E/56322/2013-(SM) - Final Order No. A/61013/2016-SM(BR) - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Sh. H. Singh, AR for the appellant Sh. Sudhir Malhotra. Advocate for the respondent ORDER Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Ld. Commissioner (A) set aside the adjudication order demanding duty from the respondent on account of the goods lost in fire during the pendency the claim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctory on 25.08.2007 at 11 am. On 19.09.2007, the respondent applied for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 providing detail chart of showing finished goods destroyed, the cost of these goods and Central Excise Duty involved thereon. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent to demand duty on the goods lost in fire. The adjudication authority during the pendency of claim of remission of duty filed by the respondent holds that as finished goods have been held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Revenue who submits that the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order is incorrect as he hold that the claim of remission of duty was pending before the Ld. Commissioner, therefore, demanding duty by way of adjudication order is pre mature. It is his submissions that the claim of remission of duty was rejected and intimated on 04.12.2012, therefore, order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) on 11.12.2012 is contrary to the facts. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. .....

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