SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

M.V.RAVINDRAN, M.VEERAIYAN
Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Surat-II – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Willingdon Christian,Samir Chitkara

ORDER

Per M.V. Ravindran : All these three appeals are directed against the order in original No. 10/MP/2003 dated 24.10.2003 by which, the demand was confirmed and penalties were imposed on the appellants.

2. The relevant facts, that arise for consideration, are that the appellant company M/s. Haryana Sheet Glass was a 100% EOU, engaged in the manufactured of sheet glass. The appellant company had been granted Industrial licence by the Department of Industrial Development under EOU scheme. The appellant was availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 4.1.1995 as EOU. The appellant procured furnace oil, HSD and LDO under Notification No. 1/95 after following the proper procedure as laid down in the said Notification. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant in June, 2001 directing them to show cause as to why the benefit of Notification No. 1/95 be not denied to them on the ground that the items like furnace oil, LDO, HSD do not fall in the category of consumable for which they had sought CT-3 certificates. The appellant contested the above show cause notice on the ground that these goods were consumed in the factory premises and proper accounts have been ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top