Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ISMT Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise

2017 (12) TMI 268 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT credit on returned goods - Rule16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - the appellant on the returned goods carried out the processes such as straightening, dimension checking heat treatment, lacquer quoting etc, whether theses process amounts to manufacture? - Held that: - it cannot be accepted that the appellant have carried out any other process such as galvanizing and redrawing of the pipe. In absence of these process whatever process carried out it does not amount to manufacture - in 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

was paid or otherwise, was not disclosed to the department - demand with interest and penalty upheld. - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/88654/13 - A/90254/17/SMB - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Aparna Hirandagi, Advocate for Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant have received defective pipes which were cleared by them on payment of duty. After return of de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice was issued which was culminated into adjudication order wherein demand of differential duty was confirmed, the order for recovery of interest equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upholding the order-in-original No.PUN-CEX-002-ADJ-ADDL-50-2011 dt. 6.3.2011 rejected the appeal in toto. Therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, Ld. Counsel appearin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder Section 4 of the Act i.e. on the transaction value. She submits that the appellant have carried out various processes including the process of galvanizing and redrawing the pipes which amount to manufacture as per Chapter Note No.3 & 4 of Chapter 73, therefore no differential duty demand is sustainable. She placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai - 2002(149) ELT 1096 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii) Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. Vs. Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efective pipe was received and after rectification the same pipes were returned therefore there no manufacturing process. He further submits that as regard the submissions of the appellant that the activity of redrawing and galvanizing would amount to manufacture. He submits that no evidence was produced before the lower authority that apart from the process shown in the show cause notice, the process such as galvanizing/redrawing has been carried out by the appellant therefore in the absence of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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