Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 133 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Metal Forgings & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 November, 2002

J.K. White Cement Works vs Cce on 26 April, 2005

The learned SDR mentioned that the learned Sr. Advocate has referred to the following lines in Metal Forging case in support of his contention that the assessments were provisional -- "These facts in the instance case are missing, therefore., in our opinion there is no material in the instant case to establish the fact that either there was a provisional classification or there was an Order made under Rule 9B empowering the clearances on the basis of such provisional classification." The learned SDR contended that ratio of a judgment is taken only after reading the whole judgment or at least the material parts and not a few lines from a particular para; that the ratio in the case of Metal Forging is that for assessment to be provisional there must be a specific Order for provisional assessment under Rule 9B.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

The Jamshri Ranjitsinghji Spinning And ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 1 July, 2005

Member (Judicial) had observed that there should be a specific provisional assessment order in terms of Rule 9B to constitute assessment as provisional. I find, in this case, the appellant has filed B-13 Bond and in this bond has specifically requested the department to make provisional assessment of Excise Duty, pending final assessment in terms of rule 9B. Appellant had also undertaken to observe all the formalities relating to such Provisional Assessment and to pay the duty on the basis of the decision of High Court within 10 days from the date of demand. This Bond was duly accepted by the department. In other words, the appellant's request for making the provisional assessment pursuant to an order of provisional assessment by the High Court has been accepted by the department. Therefore, it should be constituted that an order of Provisional Assessment exists and pursuant to that clearances were effected. The requirement of Metal Forgings decision of the Supreme Court have thus been in fact and law complied. There is no reason to restrict the Apex Court's decision in Metal Forgings case to only an order of Assistant Collector, an order of a High Court/Supreme Court pursuant to a dispute before them to grant interim relief can be an order of Provisional Assessment under Rule 9B especially when Bonds prescribed thereunder are executed. The assessee was determining the duty liability in terms of rule 173F and was debiting the duty payable in Bond account and furnishing monthly RT 12 returns as required under Rule 173G showing the clearances for captive consumption. In RT-12 returns for such clearances were assessed provisionally under Rule 173I as seen on the endorsement made on these returns. The assessee himself had calculated the 50% of duty payable as per the stay order passed by the Supreme Court and had paid it accordingly and for the rest 50% bonds were made available. In these facts, the conclusion can be that the assessments were provisional. The Member (Technical has given reasons in details in his order in this regard and I agree with the same. I cannot find, in the facts herein, that assessments were not provisional.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S. Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 23 October, 2019

12. Per contra, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent- State submits that the inspection report should be treated to be as gist of accusation required under the show cause notice and the inspection report 7 should be deemed to be sufficient to enable the petitioner to file its reply and since the gist of the accusations are given in the inspection report and the necessary information required to be given in the show cause notice was made available to the petitioner in the form of inspection report, as such, issuance of the show cause notice in a specified manner was not required in law. He has further submitted that the inspection report should be treated to be part of show cause notice contemplated under Rule 58 of the JVAT Rules. The counsel for the State further submits that the judgment cited by the petitioner in Metal Forgings (Supra) is not applicable in the instant case in as much as, the facts of that case is entirely different with facts of this case and as such, the ratio cannot be made applicable in the facts of this case.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - D Roshan - Full Document

M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 2 November, 2015

Further, the said LB decision is superseded by the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Metal Forgings (supra) in the year 2002. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case and by respectfully following the above Apex Court decisions, the demand is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next