M\/s. SAIL Refractory Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1059 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 18-7-2018
E\/394 to 397\/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42038-42041\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nMs. S. Gayatri, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of refractory bricks. They raised bonus claim against the buyers to whom the refractory bricks were supplied and which had outperformed the guarantee period as per commercial terms and conditions of t<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n llant has to be included in the assessable value. Four show cause notices were issued raising the above allegations for the periods as mentioned below. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and interest but set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. Hence these appeals. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. SAIL Refractory Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, SalemCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1059 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 18-7-2018E\/394 to 397\/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42038-42041\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Gayatri, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. … Continue reading “M\/s. SAIL Refractory Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem”<\/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-13813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13813","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=13813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13813\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Ms. S.Gayatri explained the details of the adjudication order, period involved and the amount as given in the Table below:-
\nOrder-in-Original
\nPeriod
\nTotal
\nNo. 10\/2005 dated 26.12.2005
\nMarch 2004 to Jan. 2005
\n42,96,023\/-
\nNo. 12\/2008 dated 26.12.2008
\n1\/2008 to 3\/2008
\n36,464\/-
\nNo. 03\/2009 dated 26.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n