Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

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 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (7) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i P.V. Mohan, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)].  - This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 5/2001 dated 16-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated a demand of Rs. 51,810/- raised on M/s. VRW Refractories (Respondents) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of Jalan Refractories (P) Ltd. relied upon by the appellate Commissioner. Another ground is raised that the bonus received was an additional consideration for the excisable goods cleared. 4. The lower appellate authority observed that it was incorrect on the part of the original authority to have not granted relief to the respondents when duty was demanded for bonus received. In any cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cern in regard to the sale price of the goods at the time of removal. We, therefore, feel that there was no justification for treating the bonus amount as part of the price of the goods and demanding duty on that basis. The action is also patently unjust as it has been done without giving abatement for the penalties. Accordingly, the demand is set aside." A decision of this Bench in Burn Standard ....