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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise Gurgaon II, Gurgaon Versus M/s Honda Motorcycle & Scooters India Pvt. Limited

2018 (1) TMI 489 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Maintainability of appeal - Section 35G of the CEA, 1944 - Held that: - In a recent decision of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax vs. M/s Raja Dyeing, Ludhiana, [2017 (3) TMI 1284 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] it has been held that where the order of the appellate Tribunal deals with a question of rate of duty or valuation of the goods for the purpose of assessment as well as with questions relating to other aspects, an appeal is not maintainable under Secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 5.8.2016, Annexure A.5 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short, the Tribunal ) in Appeal No.E/4001/2012, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the CESAT was right in dropping the demand towards duly pertaining to the extended period of limitation? ii) Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in dropping the demand towards duty pertainin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(SC) and Super Synotex (India) Ltd vs. CCE Jaipur-2014 (301) ELT 273 wherein it was held that amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable value? iv) Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in setting aside the consequential penalty imposed upon the respondent when the Tribunal had itself held that the amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable value and the respondents had intenti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods falling under the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is availing CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of final products under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004. It is holding VAT registration number as required under the relevant rules. During the course of audit, it was noticed that it had been retaining 50% of the sales tax collected by it from its customers on account of tax concession allowed to it under Rule 69 of the Ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

forming part of the income was on account of sales of the goods and was liable to be added in the value of the goods for payment of duty. The said show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III, Gurgaon and vide order dated 27.9.2012, Annexure A.4, the demands were confirmed alongwith interest, and penalty equal to the duty amount was also imposed on the party. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee raised an issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that one of the issue which was adjudicated by the Tribunal related to classification/valuation of the goods for the purpose of central excise duty, and therefore, an appeal under Section 35G of the Act is not permissible. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard 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

cision of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon II, Commissionerate, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. M/s Minda Industries Limited, CEA No.23 of 2016 decided on 22.3.2017, relying upon the order dated 14.3.2017 in CEA No.18 of 2016, Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax vs. M/s Raja Dyeing, Ludhiana, it has been held that where the order of the appellate Tribunal deals with a question of rate of duty or valuation of the goods for the purpose of assessment as well .....

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