Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai Versus M\/s. Sri Naga Nanthana Mills Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1123 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Appeal No. E\/380\/2009 – Final Order No. 42036\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant
\nShri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe above appeal is filed by the department against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the demand, interest and penalties.
\n2. The respondents are engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn and polyester yarn and are also selling through their consignment a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n an reiterated the grounds of appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai Versus M\/s. Sri Naga Nanthana Mills Ltd.Central Excise2018 (9) TMI 1123 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 18-7-2018Appeal No. E\/380\/2009 – Final Order No. 42036\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant … Continue reading “Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai Versus M\/s. Sri Naga Nanthana Mills Ltd.”<\/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-13842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13842","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=13842"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13842\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. On behalf of the respondent, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan submitted that under Rule 8(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as it stood then, the assessee is required to pay “excise duty for each consignment by debit to the current account” and hence the assessee can pay the differential through CENVAT account. The respondents had the facility of payment of differential duty and paid the same through their CENVAT account for which the show cause notice was issued. He submitted that during the relevant period the issue has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Noble Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2007 (215) ELT 500 (Tri. LB) and the same has also been considered by<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n