The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Versus Bhavani Ceramic Pvt Ltd.
Central Excise
2017 (10) TMI 501 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2017 (356) E.L.T. A20 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-9-2017
Tax Appeal No. 773 of 2017
Central Excise
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ.
\nFor The Appellant : Mr Sudhir M Mehta, Advocate
\nORAL ORDER
\n(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
\n1. Department has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the CESTAT dated 06.03.2017 raising following question for our consideration:
\n “Whether the Tribunal is correct in law when the significant document submitted by the assessee corroborated by the conformational statements of the as<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ssued for the subsequent periods. The audit officer who took objection of ratio is not able to give any correct ratio. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Versus Bhavani Ceramic Pvt Ltd.Central Excise2017 (10) TMI 501 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2017 (356) E.L.T. A20 (Guj.)GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 28-9-2017Tax Appeal No. 773 of 2017 Central ExciseMR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr … Continue reading “The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Versus Bhavani Ceramic Pvt 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-8188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8188","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=8188"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8188\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n In audit report, they have mentioned ratio of 205 whereas they have recovered the duty as per 1.8 ratio. Thus there is no base ratio of 2.5. Thereafter audit has also been conducted in the year 2009 and 2010 by Central Excise Audit Section as well as A.G. Audit and ratio was found in order as declared by the assessee and further no any objection was taken by the audit party.
\n Thus the subsequent show cause notice was not required to be issued.”
\n3. These findings were confirmed by the Tribunal. It can thus be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence of record and essentially one of facts. No que<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n