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 →

M/s. Special Spring India Pvt. Ltd. Shri Ajay Chawla, Shri Pyarelal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi

2017 (5) TMI 809 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Statement in the Form specified in Annexure 19 as prescribed in para 13.2 of Part II of Chapter 7 of CBEC Manual of Supplementary Instructions - the assessee’s contention is that the statement is not substantive requirement under the N/N. 42/2001-CE (NT) - Held that: - This matter is covered by the Tribunal’s decision in appellant’s own case [2015 (2) TMI 1093 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held thatthe appellant is not required to file details as per annexure 19 to special instruction and as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s are in appeal against Order in Appeal No. 216-218/2016 dated 14.9.16 wherein demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 3,06,469/- along with equivalentpenalty has been sustained against the appellant. Additional penalties have been imposed on Director and authorized signatory of the appellant assessee who are also in appeal against the said penalties. 2. Both sides have been heard, represented by learned Counsels, Shri Ravinder Singh for the appellant and Shri G R Singh and Ms. K.V. Kumar for 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

ecified as mentioned above. However, the assessee s contention is that the statement is not substantive requirement under the notification No.. 42/2001-CE (NT). This matter is covered by the Tribunal s decision in appellant s own case in Excise Appeal No. 57859 of 2013-SM vide Final Order No. A/50641/2015 Ex (SM) dated 24.2.2015. The Tribunal in the said decision observes as under: 3. As the appellant was not filing the said statement in Annexure 19 along with proper export documents in terms 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

Therefore, later on Revenue cannot declare the LOU invalid. To support his contention. He relied on Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. vs. CCE, Belgaum [ 2008 (229) ELT 641 (SC)]. wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has observed that exemption notification cannot be whittle down Exemption Notification and restrict scope of Exemption Notification. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in their own case reported as [2012 (277) ELT 356 (Tri-Del)] wherein this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7. In this case, the short issue involved before me is that whether the said instructions issued under Rule 31 shall prevail ; over the notification issued by the CBEC or not. The issue came up before the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sandur Micro Circuits (supra) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held in 5. The issue relating to effectiveness of a Circular contrary to a Notification statutorily issued has been examined by this Court in several cases. A Circular cannot take away the effect .....

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