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 clarifies duty rate for goods produced in August '97, upholds demand, overturns penalty</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus INDORE ROLLING MILLS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus INDORE ROLLING MILLS LTD. - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 119 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 50/97 and Notification No. 57/97 regarding duty rates for goods manufactured and cleared in August 1997.2. Applicability of duty rates under Notification No. 50/97 as amended by Notification No. 57/97.3. Discrepancy in duty calculation and imposition of penalty.4. Absence of representation from the respondents during the appeal process.Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 50/97 and Notification No. 57/97The case involved a dispute regarding the duty rate applicable to goods manufactured and cleared in August 1997 due to a change in the effective date of levy from 1-8-97 to 1-9-97. The confusion arose from the amendment of Notification No. 50/97 by Notification No. 57/97, which shifted the effective date of duty rates. The respondents argued that the duty liability should be discharged at the prescribed effective rate of 15% ad valorem. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) contended that for goods manufactured in a hot rolling mill with a nominal diameter not exceeding 160 mm in August 1997, the duty rate remained at Rs. 150/- PMT as per the notifications. The Tribunal held that the duty rate applicable for goods produced in August 1997 was 15% ad valorem, and upheld the demand for duty at Rs. 300/- PMT as per the prevalent practice during that period.Issue 2: Applicability of duty rates under Notification No. 50/97 as amended by Notification No. 57/97The revenue argued that the amended notifications did not specify the duty rate for goods manufactured before 1-9-97 but cleared in August 1997, asserting that the tariff rate of 15% ad valorem applied to such goods. The Tribunal clarified that the amended Notification No. 50/97 was not applicable to goods manufactured before 1-9-97, and upheld the duty demand at Rs. 300/- PMT for goods produced in August 1997, in line with the prevalent practice and uniformity in duty payable by the assessee.Issue 3: Discrepancy in duty calculation and penalty impositionThe adjudicating authority confirmed a duty of Rs. 26,196/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal agreed with the adjudicating authority's demand for duty at Rs. 300/- PMT for goods produced in August 1997, but found no need for the imposition of a penalty in the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the original authority was set aside.Issue 4: Absence of representation from the respondentsDespite notice and the absence of representation or a request for adjournment from the respondents, the Tribunal proceeded with the appeal based on the evidence on record. No cross-objection was filed by the respondents, leading to the disposal of the appeal based on the available evidence.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and confirming the original authority's decision on duty calculation while eliminating the penalty imposition due to the circumstances of the case.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found