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 →

Rajkumar Dad, Alumayer India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

2017 (7) TMI 445 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Manufacture - the appellants are engaged in undertaking works contract which involved supply of material and service for which they procured materials like, aluminum doors, windows, curtain wall, structural glazing, suspended glaze, spider glass, sky lights and canopies, etc. on payment of proper excise duty - case of the department is that the appellants activity is of manufacture of the parts of doors and windows, structural glazing, curtain wall, spider glazing, etc. which is liable to excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er for confirming the demand. - The adjudicating authority shall pass a denovo adjudication order after verifying the quantification as submitted by the appellant and also by analyzing various judgements cited by the learned Counsel - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1039 & 1054/06 - A/88110-88111/17/EB - Dated:- 23-6-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Akrit Jain, CA for appellant Shri.Ashutosh Nath, Asst. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the department is that the appellants activity is of manufacture of the parts of doors and windows, structural glazing, curtain wall, spider glazing, etc. which is liable to excise duty. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 29/06/2005 was issued proposing recovery of excise duty of ₹ 94,29,664/-. The show-cause notice was culminated into adjudication order, wherein the proposed demand, interest and penalty was confirmed. 2. Shri V Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Akrit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sioner only on the basis of Larger Bench decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra 2005 (190) ELT 301 (T-LB). Therefore, when there was conflicting view of the issue, there was no suppression of facts on the part of te appellants and the extended period of demand is not invocable. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgements: a) Savira Industries 2016 (331) ELt 504 (T) b) Mahindra & Mahindra 2006 (201) ELT 27 (T) c) Essar Engineering & Contractors - 2009 (245) ELT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rds the merit of the case, he submits that the learned Commissioner is solely decided the dutiability of the products in question on the basis of Larger Bench decision of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra). However, the said Larger Bench decision is no longer valid for the reason that the same has been distinguished in the following decisions: a) Aluplex India Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (206) ELT 960 (T) b) Ajit India 2000 (119) ELT 274 (SC) c) Deepak Galvanising & Engg. Indus 2008 (228) ELT 40, which was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order and he also made a written submission by citing various decisions which was taken on record. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the learned Counsel raised the question of quantification of demand. In this regard, he has given re-quantification chart as under: Sl. No Particular F.Y 2000-2001 F.Y 2001-2002 1. Assessable value as per show cause notice (i.e. sales recei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

F.Y 2004-2005 1. Assessable value as per show cause notice (i.e. sales receipt less SSI exemption 4,87,43,114 14,16,151 2 Duty demand proposed in notice (prior to cum duty benefit) 77,99,898 2,26,584 3 Turnover of aluminum from different projects - i) Akruti Nirman Projects (i.e. cost of aluminium sections used in the project + conversion cost of the aluminium in the above bill) (see working note on age 42 7 44) 84,41,756 - ii) Basons Investment (i.e. cost of aluminium sections used in the proj .....

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