Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2003 (10) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Appellants M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water. They imported sugar which is one of their inputs. At the point of import, they availed credit of basic excise duty as modvat. In August 2000, they removed 210.47 Qtls. of imported sugar for sale to a local customer. At the point of clearance of the imported su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant's factory. Their submissions before the Adjudicating Authority failed. 2. Consequently, demand of Rs. 77,865/- for AED and Rs. 29,463/- against cess was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed. In Order-in-appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed duty demand, whereas penalty was set aside. 3. Appellants have strongly pleaded that, their case is covered by the....