Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Kec International Ltd. vs Cce on 26 July, 2006

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs Cce, Jaipur I on 16 March, 2010

He, however, mentioned that the plea regarding limitation was not raised before the Commissioner, the Adjudicating Authority, but pleaded that in view of the Tribunals judgment in the case of KEC International Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2010 (96) RLTONLINE 48 (CESTAT  DEL.), this matter may be remanded to the Commissioner for deciding the issue of limitation.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Rajasthan Transformer & ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 January, 2010

5.2. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of KEC International Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in [2010 (96) RLTONLINE 48 (CESTAT-DEL)] wherein it has been held that point of limitation being a mixed question of law and facts, it would be appropriate to remand the impugned order to the original authority permitting the appellants to raise the point of bar of limitation.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cce, Delhi-Iv vs M/S A.R. Industries on 22 February, 2010

Shri Handa having repeatedly submitted that no one should be deprived of process of justice by any discriminatory approach, it has become necessary to send all the appeals to the ld. Adjudicating authority to have advantage of reading of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s KEC Industries Ltd. (supra) and decide the issue both on limitation and appropriateness of calling for demand of interest.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Dynamic Engineers vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 9 March, 2010

Present for the Appellant :Shri.Atul Gupta, Advocate Present for the Respondent:Shri. S.K. Bhaskar, JDR Coram: Honble Mr. S.K.Gaule, Member (Technical) ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:09.03.2010 PER: S.K.GAULE Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 67 (RKS) CE/ JPR-1/2008 dated 27.3.2008 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the lower adjudicating authorities order on the recovery of interest amounting to Rs.20,268/- under section 11AB of Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The contention of the appellant is that they are not contesting the liability of differential duty and interest. However they raised the issue of limitation time, admittedly, which was not raised before the lower Authorities. The appellant placed reliance on KEC International Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2010 (96) RLTONLINE 48 (CESTAT-Del.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Swastika Conductors vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 July, 2011

4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that issue involved in this case is regarding interest paid on differential duty paid on issue of supplementary invoices beyond the period of limitation by invoking the extended period and also within period of one year from the issuance of show cause notice. Show cause notices do not indicate the reason for doing so. As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel that in case of KEC International (supra), this Bench has held that point of limitation is not a pure question of law and is always question of law as well as of facts. I find that in identical situation, the Division Bench has remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority while recording the following:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Rajasthan Cables & Conductors vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 July, 2011

4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that issue involved in this case is regarding interest paid on differential duty paid on issue of supplementary invoices beyond the period of limitation for invoking the extended period. The show cause notices do not indicate the reason for doing so. As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel that in case of KEC International (supra), this Bench has held that point of limitation is not a pure question of law and is always question of law as well as of facts. I find that in identical situation, the Division Bench has remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority while recording the following:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1