TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand of duty, interest and penalty could be sustained where goods were transferred from one unit of the assessee to another, the assessee claimed revenue neutrality, and the department alleged failure to file the declaration contemplated by Section 173C.
Analysis: The transfer was between units of the same company, so even if the value adopted at clearance from the manufacturing unit was on the lower side, no corresponding gain accrued to the assessee. On these facts, revenue neutrality stood established. The non-filing of the declaration under Section 173C was therefore not attributable to any intention to evade central excise duty, and the basis for invoking penal consequences and the extended period was absent.
Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest and penalty was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
