Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.81 seconds)

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs C.C.E., Bhopal on 15 February, 2011

16. Placing reliance in the decision in the matter of S.K.F. India Ltd. it is submitted that though the decision does not deal with the issue of charging interest on payment of duty on finalisation of assessment, it does cover cases where the duty is paid at any subsequent date by the assessee on account of revision of price. The provisional assessment in the case in hand was resorted to because the appellants were not certain about the price at the time of removal of the goods. In other words, the provisional price was subjected to revision. Resort to Rule 7 protects the assessee from penal action which can be attracted for failure to pay the appropriate duty at the time of removal of the goods. Merely because the appellants took shelter of the provision of law comprised under Rule 7 that cannot exonerate the payment of interest on the delayed payment of duty. The situation in the case in hand is akin to the price revision at a future date and the same is fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court in S.K.F. India Ltd. case. Undisputedly, the differential duty was paid subsequent to the date of payment due at the time of removal of the goods. Finsalisation of the assessment does not alter the procedure of levy and collection of duty consequent to price variation.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Karnataka Vidyuth Karkahane Ltd on 9 June, 2011

This prtaierea to be posted along with CEA No.77/2O'A(}"8:_" whe're§"f't.VA' questions of {aw are ihvgtiggfied sthetxztreg./:§_VVtVVhe 'sarhe parties in respect at different substentiai questéens sf Eaw have fg-gvewered by the Diviséeh Beech ef this Ceurt .V in the apeeai CEA §\3o,1?'?;'2%Q8 diseased eff en faazeur ef the revenue; feétowtng the deeisierz f r;:é't::::e7 sttsteme eatet ée the Case :3? CQMMESSEGNER ee 49-, CENTRAL EXCISE VS. INTEFZNATIQNAL AUTO Vi-ff7{»I3., reported in 2010 (259) 5.51 3 {SC}. In View o§..§'§%V§§, 4't*fiév.. queaierz of law raised in this appeai is ansxrureré-:4' %r:j§a"v<iuT:9_ "T M of the revenue and the order passeidmhby'tbé..«Tr;%b{§'{'{aE '$3--é:et5 -- aside and the order Of the origjinai a'§Ji:_h1cr_iA.1:y
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1