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 →

PP Patel & Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

2016 (11) TMI 997 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Abatement and refund - closure of factory for a continuous period of 15 days - manufacturing of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco - Held that: - I find that the plea regarding consideration of continuous closure in more than one month has n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

048/16/SMB- Dated:- 13-4-2016 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) None for appellant Shri. NN Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for respondent ORDER The appellants, M/s.PP Patel & Co. were manufacturing Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco (capacity Det .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

10/2010 to 31/10/2010 totaling 19 days in the month of October 2010. The second claim was filed for the period 01/02/2011 to 17/02/2011 & 27/02/2011 to 28/02/2011 totalling of 19 days. The refund claim was sanctioned in respect of the period 01/1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the original adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) who uphold the order-in-original and rejected the appeals filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal. 2. Nobody appeared for the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

It was also stated in the written submission that in respect of the period 27/02/2011 & 28/02/2011, the factory remains closed upto 18/02/2011 and therefore, the period of closure was above 15 days. The appellant relies on the decision in the cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submission made by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority and pointed out that this submission was never made before the lower authorities, before the order-in-appeal was issued. He argued 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

ol touch Electronics (Poona) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III - 2016-TIOL-250-CESTAT-MUM has held that new grounds cannot be raised for the first time in the Tribunal. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that the plea regarding consideratio .....

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