News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Top Headlines »
 Income Tax Payer? Save your money! Top 10 tips for ITR filers to profit from
 Missed ITR deadline? File it before December 31 to avoid paying higher penalty
 All you need to know about treatment of income from self-occupied property ITR filing
 Complete ITR process before this date or have hefty penalty slapped on you Income Tax return filing
 M/s Nalini Jewellers, 16/2646-49, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi.
  Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (1st Amendment), Rules, 2019
 Income Tax Return filing: How to disclose foreign income, assets in ITR
 Missed Income Tax Deadline? Learn How To Prepare And Submit A Belated Return
 Not received income tax refund yet? Here is how much interest you will get
 Notification No. 100/2019 Central Board of Direct Taxes
 How to prepare for the new GST return filing systema

Supreme Court admits excise plea
June, 22nd 2009

The Supreme Court has admitted a couple of petitions filed by the excise department alleging that textile major Raymond Ltd had evaded excise duty of more than Rs 3.62 crore.    

The alleged excise evasion by Raymond relates to the period between June 1997 and June 1998, and July 1998 and December 1999.    

A bench headed by Justice S H Kapadia has admitted the appeals filed by the revenue challenging the sectoral tribunal's ruling that waived interest and penalty imposed by the department.    

The excise department, while holding Raymond guilty of misrepresentation, had issued showcause notice as to why the company should not pay duty of more than Rs 3.62 crore.    

The petition said that the deduction of 5.84 per cent sought for on account of post-removal expenses in the price list (commission to agents, bank charges and freight and insurance charges) had no relation with the discount claimed from the assessable value.    

According to the excise department, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in allowing the company's application for rectifying the mistake without considering the evidence on record.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting