Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Excise Duty

Section 11D Excise Duty Demand Quashed as Provision Not Retrospective: CESTAT Chandigarh

Case Law Details

Case Name
Kamal Steel Fabricators Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement Kamal Steel Fabricators Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh) The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal filed against the order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Faridabad-I, which had confirmed a central excise duty demand of ₹55,01,282 along with a penalty of ₹5 lakh under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The dispute originated from a show cause notice dated 04.06.1998 alleging that the appellant had collected central excise duty from Indian Railways, its customer, but had not deposited the...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 18,894

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *