Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Short Notes News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Weir Minerals (India) Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore

2017 (12) TMI 839 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Valuation - appellant was clearing certain goods to their own sister concern situated elsewhere - The department was of the view that the valuation of clearances made by the appellant to their own sister concern are to be done in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - penalty - Held that: - It stands admitted that such clearances are to be valued on the basis of the value adopted in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No.27/2014 22.12.2014. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of slurry pumps, parts of pumps, walls, etc., under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute covers the period April 2010 to December 2010. During the course of audit of the records of the appellant, the department noticed that the appellant was clearing certain goods to their own sister concern situated elsewhere. The duty payable on such goods was determined on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Cost Accountant and differential duty was worked out and paid by the appellant along with interest. However, the department subsequently issued show-cause notice which resulted in the impugned order, in which, not only the differential duty paid was upheld along with interest but penalty was also imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, we heard Mr. Harish Bindu Madhavan, learned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stands paid even before the issue of show-cause notice, there is no justification for imposition of penalty. He relied on the following case laws to support his arguments. Nirlon Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2016-TIOL-96-SC-CX Taking the ground of revenue neutrality, he cited the decisions rendered in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. vs. CCE: 2002-TIOL-126-CESTAT-DEL-LB and DIC India Ltd. vs. CCE: Final Order No.78376/2017 dated 1.12.2017 4. The learned DR defended the impugned order. 5. After hearing both .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erential duty payable, which already stands paid along with interest. The appeal is confined to the challenge to the penalty imposed in the impugned order. 5.1 We have gone through the various case laws cited by the appellant and we note that these case laws deal with facts which are similar to the one in question. In the case of DCI India Ltd., the Tribunal in similar facts has observed as follows: 6. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. In terms of the agreement which the a .....

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
 


|| 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.