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 →

M/s J.P. Glass Industries, And Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Partner of Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

2018 (1) TMI 359 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Valuation - Glass Tubes - captive consumption - N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - Held that: - there is enough evidence on record to establish that prior to the date of purchase of the compressor, the Mouth Blowing process was being used by the assessee for conversion of glass into Glass Tubes - the crux of the issue relates to the date of purchase of compressor. Admittedly, the appellant has produced a bill dated 31.03.2007 issued by Rathi Industries, showing the sale purchase of the compressor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er the compressor was actually sold on the said date or not. - As regards the manufacture of the Glass Tubes with effect from 01.04.2007 with the help of the compressor learned Advocate agrees that the same would be dutiable inasmuch as the same were being used captively for the manufacture of the exempted final products - For verification of the appellants said claim, which is dependent upon the computation of the clearances in a financial year, we remand the matter to the adjudicating aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eads, which are totally exempted from payment of duty of Excise. In the course of manufacture of such Glass Beads, Glass Tubes come into existence. The appellant was also not paying any duty on the said Glass tubes, which were further being used capitevelly for the manufacture of Glass Beads on the ground that such Glass Tubes were being manufactured by them by Mouth Blowing process, which was exempted under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. 2. The appellant factory was visited by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 07.07.2008 raising demand of duty in respect of Glass Tubes for the period April, 2003 to July, 2007 by alleging that the appellant had used compressor for blowing of the Glass Tubes instead of their claim that the same have been produced by Mouth Blowing process, and by invoking the extended period of limitation. 4. It is seen that during the adjudication proceedings, the appellant took a categorical stand that the compressor in question wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n suit filed by one of their employee before the Labour Court and award of compensation granted by the Labour Court. Statement of some of workers recorded by the investigating officers was also to the effect that prior to 01.04.2007 the Mouth Blowing process was adopted by them for the blowing of the Glass Tubes. As regards the subsequent period, the appellant submitted that though the Glass Tubes were manufactured with the help of compressor, would be dutiable but no duty was being paid by them .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urchased on 31st March, 2007 i.e. the last day of the financial year, it seems that the same was manipulated bill. Accordingly, he rejected the above stand of the appellant and affirmed the duty to the extent of ₹ 54,36,376/- along with imposition of penalties on both the appellants. 6. We have heard the learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Chhibber appearing for appellants and Learned A.R. Shri Mohammad Altaf appearing for Revenue. 7. On going through the impugned order, we find that there is eno .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also dismissed the above statement of the employee on the short ground that such facts were not brought to the notice of the visiting officers on the day of visit itself. Similarly, as regards the labour suit by another employee, which the appellant brought on record to support their contention that Mouth Blowing process was being adopted by them prior to 01.03.2007 and some of their employees have also gone to the labour Commissioner for payment of compensation, he observed that the appellant h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 31.03.2007 issued by Rathi Industries, showing the sale purchase of the compressor. The adjudicating authority has simpliciter dismissed the same on the ground that the same was purchased on the last date of the financial year and as such, was manipulated. However, we find that the above observations of the adjudicating authority are in the realm of assumptions and presumptions and not based upon any evidence so as to hold contrary to the appellants claim. Revenue has not bothered to investig .....

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