2018 (5) TMI 2042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e by the appellant herein as response to the show cause notices, including computational errors and lack of simultaneous jurisdiction to tax under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994, have not been considered in the impugned order. In the absence of a counter to these submissions, we are unable to evaluate the claims now made before us. The adjudicating authority is required to apply .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 33,928 and ₹ 1,21,832 respectively under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 against proposal for recovery of ₹ 7,11,236 and ₹ 4,78,230 respectively, along with interest thereon, and imposing penalty under section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned Counsel submits that the demand was sought to be enforced on payments made by appellant to overseas entities for procurement o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be untenable. 3. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative. 4. It would appear that the detailed submission made by the appellant herein as response to the show cause notices, including computational errors and lack of simultaneous jurisdiction to tax under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994, have not been considered in the impugned order. In the absence of a counter to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X