Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   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. Exotech Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III

2018 (2) TMI 777 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Clandestine removal - Held that: - Indubitably, the appellants were in error in not including the money value of the free issue materials and not amortizing the money value of tools issued free of cost by M/s. FIL. Nonetheless, it clearly emerges that their gaffe was only on account of procedural misunderstanding and misinterpretation of law. There is no allegation that appellants had been indulging in clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty. - Penalty - Held that: - there is 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

dv For the Respondent: Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: Bench The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles such as Deck Lid handle, Radiator Grill assembly etc., falling under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The plastic moulded parts manufactured at the appellant's Unit-I & Il, Pune are transferred to Unit-Ill situated at Chennai on payment of duty, which are then assembled using the free issue materials viz., Lamp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the said parts supplied to M/s. FIL for "Fiesta Cars." It also appeared from certain input invoices of appellant's Unit-III (Sales Invoice of Unit-I), that the appellant's Unit-I had over-valued the value of 'prime surrounds' based on which excess Cenvat credit has been availed by the appellants. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants to confirm and appropriate the differential duty and Cenvat credit paid/reversed, besides demanding interest under sec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 27.08.2007, upheld the order of original authority and rejected the appeal. Hence the appellants are before this forum. 4. On 21.09.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri Makarand P.S. Joshi submits that department has alleged that they had not amortized and included the money value of tool cost and free issue materials like lamp assemblies, which were issued free of cost by M/s. F .....

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