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 →

Satyam Enterprises thr. Pro. Shyamla Sahu, Sahu Traders thr. Pro. Pankaj Sahu Versus Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Delhi, Commissioner Customs And Central Excise, Assistant Commissioner Customs and Central Excise (Division II) Sagar, Assistant Commissioner Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax, Madhya Pradesh

2016 (11) TMI 1001 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Classification of manufactured goods - Pan Samagrai - classified under tariff entry 24039920 or under entry No.24011090? - Held that: - the fact remains that the respondents reply are silent with regard to the requirement of Clause 8 particularly in the matter of providing of sample as has been taken at the time of inspection. Once the statutory Rules contemplated a specific provision for testing of the sample, submission of report and the right is conferred on the assessee to seek retesting by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with the statute, if so advised - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P. No. 100/2016 & W.P. No. 102/2016 - Dated:- 4-11-2016 - Rajendra Menon (ACJ) And Anjuli Palo, JJ. ORDER Shri Anil Khare, Senior Counsel with Shri Shobhitaditya Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Gautam Prasad, counsel for Respondents No.1 to Heard counsel for the parties on admission. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking quashment o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

use of tobacco the entry and tariff prescribed under entry No.24011090 will not apply and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the duty. A show cause notice dated 13.1.2012 Annexure P-3 was issued to the petitioners in this regard. The petitioners approached this Court, challenging the said show cause notice in W.P. No.3649/2015 and W.P. No.3650/2015 and came out with a case that Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules has been specifically formulated for the purpose of testing the exercisable go .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed on account of the fact that there was violation of the statutory requirement, inasmuch as, report received after testing was not supplied to the petitioners. However, after the earlier show cause notice was quashed, again, a show cause notice is issued and while issuing the show cause notice against Clause 8 of Chapter 11 of the statutory manual has been violated. Clause 8.8 of the aforesaid provision reads as under :- 8.8 whenever the assessee is dissatisfied with the test carried out by Che .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n, customs and Central Excise, New Delhi 1983 as under, which is reproduced below:..... According to Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel the sample taken at the time of inspection has to be bifurcated into four sealed different packets and marked separately and retained and after the test report are received, alongwith the test report a copy of sample has to be given to the petitioners, so that the petitioners can exercise the right of retesting. Shri Khare, took us through the entire Rule a .....

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