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 →

Kriti Nutrients Versus Ministry of Commerce And Industry, Indore

2016 (7) TMI 1382 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Classification of export goods - residue left from the extraction of soyabean oil which is covered under Chapter Heading 2304 of CETA - Held that: - in the present case an intelligence was collected by the officers of headquarters preventive branch of their Commissionerate that the plant of the petitioner is based on solvent extraction technology and they are exporting residue left from the extraction of soyabean, which is covered under Chapter Heading No. 2304 and not under Chapter Heading No. .....

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 Petitioner. ORDER Shri A.M. Mathur, learned senior counsel with Shri Ashutosh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of show cause notice dated 4-4-2016 (Annexure-P/5) and subsequent reminders issued by the authorities from time to time. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company engaged in the manufact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4 and that by misclassification the petitioner s export product falling under Chapter Head No. 2304 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as items of Chapter Heading No. 1208 of CETA, 1985, petitioner have taken inadmissible incentive of ₹ 04.26 crores from this office under the VKGUY scheme of Chapter 3. The respondent No. 1, under the scheme of Chapter 3 directed to file reply to the show cause notice as to why petitioner s VKGUY authorizations issued under Chapter Heading 1208 should n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

VKGUY authorizations granted earlier will be cancelled as per direction of the excise authorities, without any prior intimation to the petitioner. 6. On 22-4-2016, the petitioner was again asked for the reasons on the ground that no reason was assigned about the alleged misclassification of the exported products and requested to supply the copy of the letter and upon document to the show cause notice. 7. On 13-4-2016, a detailed representation has been given by the petitioner. The dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce, name of the petitioner firm has been placed in DEL and further directed the petitioner to surrender all the Duty Credit Scrips (as per list attached), if not utilized already, or pay whole amount of the scrips value i.e. 4.26 crores along with 18% interest thereon, within 10 days from the date of issue of the letter, failing which disciplinary action as per FTDR Act, 1992 will be initiated against him. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the export sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se officers have checked the impugned goods and certified in their examination reports that the the description, quantity and value of the goods covered by this invoice and particulars amplified in the packing list as such as gross weight checked and certified export mark have been checked after verifying the container . The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that without changing the classification of the product in question by the customs authorities by any orders, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. reported as 2007 (213) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.). Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) and Rajkamal Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors., reported as 2016 [1] M.P.L.J. 373 and submitted that the respondent No. 1 committed a serious error in issuing show cause notice without changing the assessment order made by the custom authorities and unless the classification is .....

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