Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Balaji Products Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Delhi

Suppression of facts - additional duty of excise leviable under Notification No.6/05 dated 01.03.2005 - SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003 dated 1.6.2003 - unbranded tobacco - Held that: - the appellant was filing E.R.-I returns in which it was clearly depicting clearances of the un-branded tobacco at nil rate of duty. If the intention had been to suppress the clearance of such goods at Nil rate of duty, it would not have mentioned the details of such clearances in the ER-I returns. - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l mis-statement. The onus is not on the assessee to prove its bonafides - sufficient grounds required for sustaining the allegation of willful misstatement/suppression of fact do not exist in this case, and therefore, extended period is not invokable. - The demand pertaining to the extended period beyond one year set aside and the mandatory equal penalty under Section 11AC also set aside - Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. E/3188/2009-EX [DB] - F .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

und that the appellant cleared un-manufactured tobacco claiming SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003 dated 1.6.2003 but did not pay additional duty of excise leviable under Notification No.6/05 dated 01.03.2005 by willfully indulging in misstatement / suppression of facts. 2. The appellant has contented that it was genuinely unaware of the imposition of the additional duty and did not indulge in any suppression or the willful misstatement of facts as is evident from the fact that it was ti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not suppression of facts. 4. We have considered the contention of both sides. As far as the merit of the case is concerned both sides agreed that the impugned additional duty of excise was leviable on the impugned goods under Notification No. 6/05 dated 01.06.2005 However, we find that the appellant has taken the plea that there was no willful misstatement or suppression of facts and was genuinely not aware of such liability. The contention of the appellant is sufficiently supported by the fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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