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 →

M/s Shree Pouches Versus CCE, Jaipur-I

2017 (11) TMI 701 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation - Compounded Levy Scheme - second machine which was closed from time to time - Department is asking the duty for the full months under the compound levy scheme. The claim of the appellant is that duty is not payable on the second machine for the period when it was sealed by the department till reopened by the department - Held that: - The assessee deposited the duty amount for the month of July in advance vide e-receipt - As per the composite scheme, for production of pan masala and gu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d when the machine was working and raise the demand of duty and alongwith interest - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No.50280 of 2016 - A/57105/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 11-10-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Amit Singh, Advocate for the appellant Sh. S. K. Bansal, A. R. for the respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal No.JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-34-15-16 dated 20.11.2015 pass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter called as Rules). The appellant was having two machines in its factory. One machine was continuously working and duty was paid as per the compound levy scheme. The dispute arose regarding the second machine which was closed from time to time. Regarding the second machine, prior information was given, so, it was sealed for some time in March, 2012, May 2012 and July, 2012 for a few days. The dispute is that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iso to Rule 8 of the Rules and has considered sealed machine as installed machine even for the period when it was sealed. He submits that the 2nd proviso to Rule 8 does not deal with the situation where the machine was sealed and uninstalled by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(5), 6(6) and 13(1) and 13(2) of the Rules. If the procedure of sealing and unsealing of the machines prescribed under the Rules is complied with, and the machines are added or removed by filling declaration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t in the case of Commissioner Vs. Thakkar Tobacco Products P. Ltd. - 2016 (332) ELT 785 (Guj) where it was observed that- 15. Besides, in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that it is not disputed that the adjustments made were not more than the amounts of duties mandated to be abated as per Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules, the action of the respondent -assessee in computing the proportionate amount of duty towards the abatement and setting it off against the duty payable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot be said that the said action is contrary to the statutory scheme. When the rules do not provide for the manner in which duty is required to be abated, nor do they provide that abatement shall be by an order of the Commissioner or any authority, but nonetheless provide for abatement of duty and the extent of entitlement to such abatement, no fault can be found in the approach of the assessee in suo motu taking the benefit of such abatement . 5. He also submits that no duty liability arises whe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nently discontinues manufacturing of goods. So, he submits that as per Rule 10, the appellant is suppose to deposit the entire duty on second machine and then file the refund claim for the period when machine was sealed. 7. We have heard both sides and gone through the material available on record. 8. We find that the view of the department is that machine No.2 was operating for manufacturing pouch for MRP ₹ 1. Initially, it was operating from 1.7.2012 to 20.12.2012 and remaining period 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

 

 

 

 

 

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