Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

JBM Auto Limited Versus The Union of India And Others

2016 (10) TMI 120 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Seeking deletion of adverse remark from order dated 29th October, 2014 - "It is a clear case of suppression and misdeclaration of facts with intent to evade duty" - Central excise duty, interest component and equal penalty has been paid by the petitioner under the impugned order - petitioner had not disclosed the value of dies/fixtures in the declared value of parts/components - Held that:- we do not think that there was any need to record a finding that there is a suppression and mis-declaratio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d mis-declaration of facts cannot be reconciled. We, therefore, delete that part of the order. The petitioner will not derive any benefit in the form of refund of duty, interest and penalty already paid under the order of the Settlement Commission. - Decided in favour of petitioner - Writ Petition No. 8072 of 2015 - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Mr. V. Sridharan - Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Shah and Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enge to the final order except to above extent and rather one small remark in para 7.4, which reads as under:- 7.4 ….. It is a clear case of suppression and misdeclaration of facts with intent to evade duty. ….. 3) Mr. Sridharan would submit that if para 8 and the findings ultimately arrived at cannot be reconciled with this remark, then, that remark should have been expunged or deleted. 4) On instructions, he also states that the Central Excise Duty, as per the order, has been pai .....

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 Duty. It is in these circumstances that the remark was inserted and it does not cause any prejudice and therefore, it should not be deleted. 6) The petitioner approached the Settlement Commission. The application for settlement was admitted and a report of the Revenue was called for. The petitioner pointed out that it contains the details of value of dies/fixtures supplied by M/s. Tata Motors Limited. The petitioner/applicant was not amortizing the same in the value of goods/sub-assemblies bei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts and components. They were receiving dies/fixtures free of cost from M/s. Tata Motors Limited for use in their manufacturing process, but failed to include the amortized value of such dies/fixtures in the final value of parts/components manufactured. That is how, being aware about the legal position regarding the inclusion of such value, the petitioner was faulted, but having come forward to settle the claim, the findings were rendered and to the above effect. The entire findings are rendered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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