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 →

CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad-II Versus M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.,

2016 (12) TMI 72 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Demand - time bar - Held that: - The Commissioner (Appeals) has reproduced the grounds alleged by appellant in the impugned order. It is seen that appellants have raised the plea of limitation also. Hence the ground put forward by department that such a plea does not exist is factually wrong. The next contention put forward by department is that Section 11A does not speak the relevant date to be the date of acquiring knowledge by the department, and that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in compu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ommissioner (AR) for the Appellant. Sh. Sumanth Advocate for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The Brief facts are: a) The respondent, M/s Idea Cellular Limited, Hyderabad have imported certain goods viz., telecommunication equipment falling under chapter 85 of Customs Tariff Act, 1985 vide 17 bill of entries dated 07.07.2006 & 11.07.2006 under DFCEC scheme (Duty Free Credit Entitlement Certificate) as service provider claiming benefit of Notification No. 54/2003-Cus dated .....

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 permitted. Hence the Respondent cleared the bill of entries under Notification No. 54/2003 though the same are to be assessed under Notification No. 92/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004. The said bill of entries were finally assessed and out of charge order was issued on 11.07.2006 and 14.07.2006. c) Thereafter on 05.06.2008 i.e. after a period of 2 years the respondent was served with a SCN that the respondent is not entitled for debiting the SAD amount through scrip in terms of Notification No. 5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appeals) has set aside the demand on the ground of time bar which was not raised by the appellants at all. Further that as per Section 11A (3) the relevant date is not the date on which the department acquired knowledge of the fact. That therefore the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) that the Show Cause Notice is time barred is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 3. The Ld. Counsel for respondent Sh. Sumanth adverted to the impugned order and submitted that the respondent had put forwa .....

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