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. Jay Ace Technologies Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Dehradun

2017 (11) TMI 753 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

N/N. 67/1995 dated 16.03.1995 - Intermediate goods - Revenue held a view that the intermediate products, being in the negative list of area based exemption, is neither eligible for exemption under N/N. 50/2003 nor exemption for captive consumption under N/N. 67/95 as the final product is exempted - Held that: - the assertion in the impugned order regarding specific nature of inorganic compound was not been established by any chemical test - identical issue was decided in the case of ASSOCIATED P .....

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, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Kamal Aggarwal, FCA Present for the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Bansal, D.R. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The dispute in the present case is regarding the eligibility of the appellant for concession under Notification No.67/1995 dated 16.03.1995. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lead acid batteries. They are availing area based exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE dated 10.06.2003, as the u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mption under Notification No.50/2003 nor exemption for captive consumption under Notification No.67/95 as the final product is exempted. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand and recover the Central Excise duty on such lead oxide emerging as intermediate products. The impugned orders demanded duty on this ground and confirmed a liability of ₹ 62,24,404/- and ₹ 2,61,26,784/- for different periods. The original authority also imposed equal amounts of p .....

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 earlier case laws deciding the same issue. He relied on various decided cases in support of his contention. 3. Ld. AR supported the impugned orders and submitted that lead oxide is a specifically defined chemical of inorganic nature and should be classified under Chapter 28. The heading under Chapter 38 is for residual product and same is not attracted in the present case. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The product emerging as intermediate goods during the m .....

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