Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal overturns order, grants SSI exemption to appellants, penalty unjustified</h1> <h3>IN RE: REX BUILDERS & ENGG.</h3> IN RE: REX BUILDERS & ENGG. - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 499 (Commr. Appl.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellants were dummy units floated by M/s. Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd. to avail exemption under Notification No. 1/93.2. Whether the clearances of the appellants should be clubbed with M/s. Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd.3. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93.4. Whether the penalties imposed were justified.Detailed Analysis:1. Dummy Units Allegation:The main charge was that M/s. Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd. had floated four dummy manufacturers (M/s. Rex Builders & Engineers, M/s. Crown Rollen, M/s. Rex Arts, and M/s. Rex Arts Castors Pvt. Ltd.) to remain within the prescribed exemption limit under Notification No. 1/93. The appellants refuted these allegations, providing documentary and circumstantial evidence to prove their independent existence. They highlighted that each unit had separate registrations for Central Excise, Sales Tax, Income Tax, and other government licenses, and there was no financial flowback between the firms.2. Clubbing of Clearances:The adjudicating authority had clubbed the clearances of the four units with M/s. Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd. The appellants argued that the clubbing was unjustified as there was no evidence of financial flowback or common funding. They cited various judgments to support their claim that the value of clearances of two manufacturers or factories are not clubbable unless there is evidence of financial control or profit sharing. The tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the adjudicating authority had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the units were dummy units or that there was any financial flowback.3. Entitlement to SSI Exemption:The tribunal examined whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93. It was noted that the appellants had separate registrations with various statutory bodies and were independently assessed by different departments. The tribunal found that the appellants had proved their physical and independent existence and that they were conducting their manufacturing and business activities independently. The tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93.4. Imposition of Penalties:The tribunal also addressed the issue of penalties imposed on the appellants. It was argued that the presence of mens-rea (guilty mind) is a mandatory requirement for imposing penalties. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which stated that penalties are not justified in the absence of mens-rea. The tribunal concluded that the penalties imposed on the appellants were unjustified and set them aside.Conclusion:The tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. K-III, Mumbai-IV, and allowed all the appeals. The tribunal found that the appellants were not dummy units, their clearances should not be clubbed with M/s. Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd., they were entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93, and the penalties imposed were unjustified. The appeals were accordingly disposed of.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found