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>Settled duty liability, interest, penalty for tax evasion. Immunity granted. Refund ordered for balance.</h1> <h3>IN RE: ALCHEM INTERNATIONAL LTD.</h3> IN RE: ALCHEM INTERNATIONAL LTD. - 2009 (247) E.L.T. 864 (Sett. Comm.) Issues Involved:1. Maintenance of separate records for dutiable and exempted goods.2. Wrongful availment of Cenvat credit.3. Calculation of duty liability.4. Interest liability.5. Eligibility for settlement.6. Immunity from prosecution and penalty.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintenance of Separate Records:The applicant-company did not maintain separate records for solvents in 2003-04 and for packing materials from 2003-04 onwards. This was in contravention of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which mandates separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods. The Revenue argued that failure to maintain separate records necessitated payment of 8%/10% of the value of exempted goods as per Rule 6(3).2. Wrongful Availment of Cenvat Credit:Investigations revealed that the applicant-company availed Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods. Specific discrepancies included altered invoice numbers and the use of common inputs without maintaining separate records. The applicant admitted to wrongful credit of Rs. 10,02,390/- on solvents and packing materials, with Rs. 6,91,196/- attributable to exempted goods removed for home consumption.3. Calculation of Duty Liability:The Revenue demanded Rs. 2,40,23,173/- based on 8%/10% of the value of exempted goods. The applicant argued that their records allowed for segregation of inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, thus their liability should be Rs. 7,18,726/-. The Bench agreed with the applicant, citing the Pepsico case, and settled the duty liability at Rs. 7,18,726/-.4. Interest Liability:The applicant admitted liability to pay interest on the wrongly availed credit. The interest was calculated at 15% for the period from 1-4-2003 to 11-9-2003 and 13% thereafter, amounting to Rs. 4,31,450/-. The Bench ordered this amount to be appropriated from the Rs. 35 lakhs already deposited by the applicant.5. Eligibility for Settlement:The applicant met the requirements of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including registration with the Central Excise Department, a duty liability exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs, and proper maintenance of accounts. The settlement applications were allowed to proceed.6. Immunity from Prosecution and Penalty:The Bench imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the applicant-company, considering they reversed the credit only after detection by the Revenue. Full immunity from penalty was granted to co-applicants 1 and 2. Immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act was also granted, subject to payment of the settled amounts.Conclusion:The Bench settled the duty liability at Rs. 7,18,726/-, interest at Rs. 4,31,450/-, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The applicant and co-applicants were granted immunity from prosecution and additional penalties, provided all amounts were paid. The balance from the Rs. 35 lakhs deposited was ordered to be refunded or reversed in the Cenvat credit/PLA.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found