M\/s. Eurasian Minerals and Enterprises P Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Bhopal
Central Excise
2018 (4) TMI 1447 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 4-4-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50123 of 2018 – A\/51243\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nShri Z U Alvi, Advocate for the Appellants
\nShri S K Bansal, AR for the Respondent
\nPer: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra:
\nThe present appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order-in- Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-001-APP-337-17-18 dated 17.10.2017. Disputed period is April, 2012 to March, 2013.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the processing of iron ore. <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n f M\/s. Jains Mines and Minerals (India) Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Jabalpur [Final Order No. 57214\/2017 dated 10.10.2017 ] where it was observed that- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Eurasian Minerals and Enterprises P Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, BhopalCentral Excise2018 (4) TMI 1447 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 4-4-2018Excise Appeal No. 50123 of 2018 – A\/51243\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseMr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Z U Alvi, Advocate for the … Continue reading “M\/s. Eurasian Minerals and Enterprises P Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Bhopal”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. The only dispute in the present case is the liability of the appellant for excise duty on the process undertaken by them. The Board has vide their Circular dated 17\/02\/2012 on similar set of facts clarified the matter. However, quoting the Board Circular, the impugned order with reference to HSN note, arrived at a different conclusion. We note that the process undertaken by the appellant are not in dispute. There is no special process facility with the appellant. Improvement in the content of “Fe” due to the processes undertaken by the<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n