Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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

2018 (5) TMI 1405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 76 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant manufactured and removed excisable goods to HAL without payment of Central Excise duty claiming exemption under Notification No. 63/95 CE dated 16.03.1995 based on the duty exemption certificate issued by M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore during the period October 2008 to December 2012. The appellants were issued a show-cause notice dated 08.01.2014 demanding duty of Rs. 43,07,650/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) to be paid on clearances made by them for the period October 2008 to December 2012 by irregularly availing the benefit of Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995 demanded ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground that the assessee had not filed appeal. Thereafter the appellant again requested to the Commissioner for correction of duty demanded due to error made by the Department in computation vide his letter dated 10.04.2017. In reply to the said letter, the Department wrote a letter dated 25.04.2017 though admitted the mistake in calculation but refused to correct the same on the ground that there is no provision in law. Aggrieved by the said refusal, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2.  Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts. He further subm....