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 →

M/s R.P Foundary Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh Versus CCE, Chandigarh

2016 (11) TMI 865 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Demand - denial of benefit of N/N. 214/86CE dated 25.03.1986 - job work - filing of undertaking with the jurisdiction officer of the job worker - Held that: - I find that in this case the principal manufacture has filed declaration before the Assista .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

facture. In that circumstances, the proceedings against the appellant are not warranted. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to benefit of notification no. 214/86-CE and the duty is not payable by the appellant - appeal allowed. - Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nst the impugned order demanding duty by denying the benefit of Notification No. 214/86CE dated 25.03.1986. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is job worker and clearing the goods without payment of duty as per Notification No. 214/86-CE .....

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 Assistant Commissioner of the Job Worker filed the same before Assistant Commissioner of its jurisdiction. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny the benefit of Notification No. 214/86. Consequently, to deman .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order, the appellant is before me. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a bonafide mistake of the principal manufacturer while filing the undertaking before the Jurisdiction Officer instead of the Assistant Commissioner of Range of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wn case for the earlier period on the same ground, the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand. 3. Considering the fact the principal manufacture filed the undertaking before the Assistant Commissioner of the Range of the appellant and discharg .....

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