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 orders fresh review by Commissioner on Revenue's appeal stressing comprehensive evidence assessment</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PATNA Versus GAJRAJ INDUSTRIES</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PATNA Versus GAJRAJ INDUSTRIES - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 697 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:1. Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of duty and imposition of penalty.2. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of tin plates without duty payment.3. Discrepancies in accounting for processed tin plates, tin scrap, and tin solder.4. Exemption limit for small scale units and the applicability in this case.5. Evidence of purchase of raw materials and lack of proper accountal in statutory records.6. Decision on remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of duty and penalty. The Revenue contended that the demand was not solely based on shortages of tin solder but also included shortages of other materials. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the shortage of tin solder was explained by the respondents as being kept at the Manager's residence, and this alone could not prove clandestine production. However, the Revenue argued that the presence of processed tin plates, tin scrap, and unaccounted raw materials in the factory raised suspicions. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to evaluate all evidence comprehensively.2. The case involved allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of tin plates without duty payment. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a penalty on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, citing insufficient evidence to prove clandestine activities beyond the shortage of tin solder. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the accounting of processed tin plates, tin scrap, and tin solder, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of all evidence to establish the veracity of the allegations.3. The discrepancies in the accounting of processed tin plates, tin scrap, and tin solder were crucial to the case. While the respondents explained the shortage of tin solder by stating it was kept at the Manager's residence, the Revenue highlighted other unexplained shortages and the accumulation of materials in the factory. The Tribunal noted the lack of proper accountal in statutory records and emphasized the importance of considering all evidence, including the purchase of raw materials, to determine the validity of the allegations.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) had mentioned the exemption limit for small scale units, suggesting that the clearance of tin containers fell within this limit. The Tribunal acknowledged this point but stressed the need to assess the entire evidence comprehensively before reaching a final decision on the applicability of the exemption in this case.5. The case involved evidence of the purchase of raw materials, including tin sheets, plates, and scrap, from various sources. However, the lack of proper accounting for these materials in the statutory records raised suspicions. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of addressing these discrepancies and evaluating all evidence to establish the facts regarding the alleged clandestine activities.6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive review of all evidence on record to arrive at a well-founded conclusion regarding the alleged clandestine activities and duty evasion. The decision underscored the importance of thoroughly evaluating all aspects of the case before making a final determination.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found