M\/s. Concrete Udyog Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 459 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 7-11-2018
Appeal No. E\/41095\/2018 – Final Order No. 42784\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of concrete electricity poles. On the basis of a reference from the audit officers, the department was of the view that the appellants have short paid the duty for the reason that the agreement entered between the appellant and TNEB included th<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n to pay central excise duty at the point of agreement as well as when the TNEB has issued certificate for the poles indicating the central excise duty. It is submitted by him that when the goods have been cleared by the appellant, they had discharged the central excise duty and therefore there is no delay in payment of duty. That the demand of interest is without any legal basis. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Concrete Udyog Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer CommissionerateCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 459 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 7-11-2018Appeal No. E\/41095\/2018 – Final Order No. 42784\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the … Continue reading “M\/s. Concrete Udyog Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate”<\/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-14920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14920","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=14920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that as per the agreement as well as the certificates issued by the TNEB indicating the central excise duty, the appellants are duty bound to discharge the central excise duty at the point of agreement itself as well as the issuance of the certificate and not at the time of clea<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n