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 →

Southern Chromatics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

2017 (6) TMI 810 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Penalty - Interpretation of statute - N/N. 8/2003-CE dt. 1.3.2003 - amendment carried out in the notification w.e.f. 1.4.2003 - short payment of duty - extended period of limitation - Held that: - no valid reason has been cited for invoking the suppression clause of Section 11A - the appellant has been filing periodical returns in Form E.R-1 to the department and hence the grounds of suppression cannot be alleged against the appellant. - In any case, the amendment to N/N. 8/2003 resulted in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Technical) Shri P.C. Anand, Consultant For the Appellant Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appeal is against OIA No. 32/2005 (M-III) dt. 31.03.2005. The appellant is manufacturing various specific items such as ball point pens, OHP marker pens etc. classifiable under 9608.00 leviable to NIL rate of duty in terms of Notification No.6/2002 dt. 1.3.2002. (Sl.No229 and 230). They also manufacture Mathematical instruments/Rulers classified under tariff sub heading 9 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alue of ₹ 100 lakhs in any financial year for purposes of availing full exemption. Further, the amendment also specified inclusions and exclusions for determining the aggregate value of clearances of excisable goods as specified in clause 2 (vii) of the notification as under : (vii) the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories, or from a factory by one or more manufacturers, does not exceed rupees three hundred l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to 21.6.2004, duty was demanded for the above period by denial of the said notification. The original authority accordingly confirmed the demand of excise duty amounting to ₹ 2,62,376/- along with payment of interest. Further, penalty of amount equal to duty demanded is also levied under Section 11AC. When the original order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), he upheld the order passed by the original authority. Aggrieved by the said decision, present appeal has been filed. .....

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