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. Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. Versus CCE, Hyderabad-III

2016 (9) TMI 882 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Valuation - includability of amount collected towards collection charges in the assessable value - duty paid under protest as the same was done without issuance of any Show Cause Notice - Held that:- the addition of collection charges, weighment difference and rate difference are very much in the nature of additional consideration and hence required to be included in the assesable value for the discharge of excise duty. - Period of limitation - Demand alongwith interest and penalty - additio .....

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 the issue of limitation, and that SCN and hence the demand revised in the impugned order is time barred except for the normal period of demand immediately preceding the date of service of Show Cause Notice. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 is also set aside. the demand raised beyond the normal period, is hit by limitation and unsustainable. The impugned demand for the normal period along with interest thereof is sustained and the jurisdictional, Range Superintendent is directed to re-quantif .....

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 premises of the appellants and verified the records in 2003 and thereafter, an audit note was issued in 31.01.2005, which inter alia raised question of includability of amount collected towards collection charges in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty during the period 2003-04. No action was taken by the department subsequent to the issuance of the audit report. However, the Appellants were directed by the department to discharge duty liability amounting to ₹ 19,44,3 .....

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 ground that though the appellants have received an additional consideration amounting to ₹ 58,54,151/-, however, they have discharged duty liability only on ₹ 41,17,675/-. On this ground, recovery was proposed to demand differential duty payable by the appellant with respect to additional consideration received towards collection charges during the period from September 2002 to March 2007. b. Adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original dated 06.02.2008, confirming the propos .....

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 second contention made by Ld. Counsel was although the department conducted audit in 9/2003, however they have issued the notice only on 29.09.2007 and such the demand is barred by limitation. 3. On behalf of department, the Ld. AR, Nagaraj Naik contended that the audit note cannot be taken as conclusive and that even the appellants paid the amount only in March 2006. For these reasons, the department was well within its right to invoke extended period. 4. We have heard both sides and gone 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

 

 

 

 

 

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