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 →

C.C.E & Indore Versus M/s. R.R. Ispat Ltd.

Forfeiture of the facility to pay duty on monthly basis under Rule 8 (3A) - Held that: - The original order states that the respondent was liable to pay a Central excise duty of ₹ 1,53,14,168/- but had paid the duty of ₹ 1,22,52,128/-. There is no clarity as to whether the nonpayment of duty is after the correct self assessment made under Rule 6 by the assessee or is there a short payment of correct duty not assessed by the assessee. The Ld. Commissioner in his appellate order states .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Though the respondent admitted that clerical error resulted in their short payment it is not clear whether duty liability and payment were reflected in the assessment documents - appeal dismissed. - Appeal No. E/2153/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. 52950/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 17-9-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical). Shri R.K. Grover, DR for the Appellant. Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: The Revenue is .....

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 Assistant Commissioner issued the order on 29.03.2006 directing the respondent to forfeit the facility to pay duty on monthly basis under Rule 8 (3A). Against the said order the respondent filed the appeal and the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the present impugned order held that on merits the lower authority is correct. However, he set aside the order as the same was passed without issuing any notice or hearing the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. In t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner (A) regarding the correctness of original authority order in terms of Rule 8 (3A). The respondent stated that the department on realizing that due duty has not been discharged by the assessee should have taken remedial action of demand in terms of section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944. Proceedings under Rule 8 without any notice of hearing is legally untenable. They have further contented that there was an unintentional clerical error on their part in discharging the correct du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le 8(1) was withdrawn without any notice and without hearing their side. Hence he pleaded that the Ld. Commissioner (A) order of setting aside the lower authoritys order is correct on this ground. 6. Heard both the sides and considered the appeal papers. 7. Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 for the relevant period is reproduced as under: If the assessee defaults in payment of duty by the date prescribed in sub-rule (2) and the same is discharged beyond a period of thirty days from the said .....

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