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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Versus M/s Hindustan Fibres Ltd., GS Singhvi Managing Director, Hindustan Fibers Ltd.

2017 (11) TMI 736 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Correctness of Tribunal's decision in remitting the matters to the authority for reconsideration of the same - Held that: - In view of the observation made by the Tribunal, more particularly instructions issued by the Textile Commissioner that each year they will give 50% cotton yarn which has not been verified or cross-checked by the authority. The Tribunal has not committed error in remitting back the matter to the authority. Therefore, no case is made out - appeal dismissed - decided against .....

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 following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the voluntary statements rendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act by the authorized signatory/technical adviser of the assessee Company are not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon merely because the same were retracted subsequently by way of a telegram sent by the department? ii. Whether the CESTAT has not erred in remanding the matter with the directions to redetermine the duty only in respect to those goods which on t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

recorded under Section 14 ibid on 08.10.2001 stated that they manufactured cotton yarn at their plant at Bharatpur in the form of plain reel hanks of yarn from the reeling machines installed therein. He also stated that all the reeling machines installed at there Bunbirpur Plant were capable of producing plain reel hank yarn only. He further stated that the production requirements were executed by the Chief Executive Officer at their Banbirpur plant through the technical staff under his directi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plant to change formation of hanks. and contended that in view of the statements recorded of the Director and other employees, the view taken by the Tribunal is taken to the evidence taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and original Assessing Authority. 5. However, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of Tribunal, wherein it has been observed as under:- 5.3 The revenue relies upon the statement dated 04/10/01 of Shri R.B. Tiwari, the Technical Supervisor of the appellant s fac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me, of the officers visit to the unit on 27/09/01 and test report of the sample drawn from the stock of yarn at M/s Komal Synthetics s premises, there is no much evidence. The second sample drawn from the factory on 12/10/2000 on the Appellant s request, was on test by CRCL found to be plain real hank yarn. Shri G.S. Singhvi, M.D. of the appellant s company in his statement dated 08/10/01 has stated that their unit was producing the yarn only on cone or the plain reel hank form, that more than 5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ri Singhvi has claimed that they have to produce certain quantity of plain reel hank yarn as per the direction of the Textile Commissioner, this aspect should have been cross checked but we find that no such inquiry has been conducted in this regard. 5.4 On the basis of the above evidence, while it can be said that the Appellant have produced cross reel hank yarn on some occasions, it would be totally wrong to conclude that throughout during the period from 1996 to 2001 the Appellant company pro .....

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 Excise, Bombay reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 137 (Tri. - Del.), Pattani Chemicals vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 253 (Tri. - Del.), and Bee-Am Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 534 (Tri. - Bom.) has held that test report pertaining to a particular lot can be applied only in respect of the material of that lot and the same cannot be automatically applied in respect of the clearances made prior to such tests and t .....

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