Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Madurai vs M/S. Aruna Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd on 7 August, 2009

        

 

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX 
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

 
E/310/2009

 
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 58/2009 dated 27.02.2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),  Madurai).

For approval and signature	

Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
___________________________________________________________
1.    Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the	:
       order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
       CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

 2.   Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the    	:
       CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication 
       in any authoritative report or not?

3.    Whether  the Honble Member wishes to see the fair  	:      
       copy of the  Order.

4.    Whether order is to be circulated to the		 	:
       Departmental Authorities?  ___________________________________________________________

CCE, Madurai						:	Appellant
 
		 Vs.

M/s. Aruna Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd.			:	Respondent 

Appearance Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 07.08.09 Date of decision : 07.08.09 Final ORDER No._____________ The respondents are not present despite notice. Heard Ms. Indira Sisupal, Ld. JDR, appearing for the department. She states that the issue relates to payment of interest on the duty relating to supplementary invoice. She states that this issue has since been settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. M/s. SKF India Ltd.  2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX, against the respondent.

2. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the department and keeping in view of the ratio of the cited decision of the Honble Supreme Court, I set aside the Order in Appeal and restore the Order in Original. The departmental appeal is allowed.

(Operative part of the Order pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB