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 →

Mahammadi Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex. & Cus., Nashik

2017 (2) TMI 1261 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Validity of demand proceedings - abatement application - Compounded levy scheme - Held that: - abatement application was filed on 19-4-2000 whereas demands under show cause notices were adjudicated on 30-9-2003 without passing any order on the abatement application, therefore demand was premature. - As regard the abatement application, Commissioner instead of deciding abatement, though discussed in the findings of the order about the denial of abatement no order was passed as it clearly come .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. - E/3160/2006 and E/1071/2007-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/86383-86384/2017-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 10-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) Shri Jayesh Doshi, CA, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The brief facts of these cases are that in the application for abatement dated 19-4-2000, the Jurisdictional Commissioner vide Order No. 15/CEX/07, dated 8-5-2007 passed following order : (a) I hereby confirm the duty amount of ₹ 11,69,175/- under Rule 96ZP(3) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l for the appellant submits that all the notices had been decided before deciding the abatement application therefore proceedings of demand on those show cause notice is not legal and correct. He further submits that as regard the abatement application filed by the appellant, Commissioner confirmed the demand under Rule 96ZP(3) imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 96ZP(3) demanded interest under Rule 96ZP(3). However no order was passed as regard the abatement claim by them in their applic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that since appellant has opted for Rule 96ZP(3) abatement provided under sub-rule (2) is not applicable to the compounded levy provided under Rule 96ZP(3). Sub-rule (2) is only applicable to the compounded levy if opted under Rule 96ZP(1). He placed reliance on the following judgments : (a) Rajuri Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus., Aurangabad [2008 (225) E.L.T. 189 (Bom.)] (b) Triveni Alloys Lt .....

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