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 →

NRB Bearing Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

2017 (11) TMI 707 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Penalty - Liability of interest - relevant date - interest chargeable prior to 11/05/2001, i.e. before the amendment of Section 11AB - whether in case of short payment of duty demand due to difference in calculation of value under the Valuation Rules, 2000, the appellants are liable for payment of interest and penalty? - Held that: - identical issue decided in the appellant own case NRB Bearings Ltd. Versus CCE, Mumbai-III [2017 (11) TMI 335 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that the interest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the same only for the period from 11/05/2001 till the date of payment of the differential duty - appeal allowed in part and part matter allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL No.E/459 & 981/08 - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - Mr.Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.Pradeep Korde, Consultant for appellant Shri.Sanjay HaSIJA, Supdt. (Ar) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellant manufactured various components for needle roller bearings .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sition of penalty. The demand of interest was confirmed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the penalty of ₹ 30,000/- was imposed. 2. Shri. Pradeep Korde, Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the period involved is from April 2000 to March 2003. The interest is not chargeable prior to 11/05/2001, i.e. before the amendment of Section 11AB. He submits that prior to 11/05/2001 interest was chargeable only when non-payment of duty is due to suppression of f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

est under Section 11AB was upheld but the penalty was set aside. 4. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue lies in a narrow compass that whether in case of short payment of duty demand due to difference in calculation of value under the Valuation Rules, 2000, the appellants are liable for payment of interest and penal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the appellant, therefore the interest for the period prior to 11/05/2001 is not chargeable. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd., - 2004 (164) ELT 455 (Tri-Del) wherein this Tribunal has passed the following order: 4. We have gone through the file and heard both the sides. The facts are not much in dispute. The short payment of duty by the appellants pertains to the LSHS which they procured from IOC for use in the generation of steam as fee .....

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