Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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 Upholds Confiscation & Penalties for Undervaluation in Goods Case</h1> <h3>NOBLE PLY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT</h3> The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on M/s. Neelkamal Laminates and M/s. Bhandari Doors & Plywood for ... Demand - Undervaluation - Evidence - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.2. Allegation of undervaluation of goods.3. Determination of duty liability and penalties for different periods.4. Admissibility and reliability of evidence.5. Application of the concept of 'normal price' and 'transaction value.'Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties:The Commissioner held that goods seized from M/s. Neelkamal Laminates and M/s. Bhandari Doors & Plywood were liable for confiscation. Redemption fines and penalties were imposed on these parties. The Tribunal upheld the penalties and redemption fines, confirming the Commissioner's findings based on the overwhelming evidence of undervaluation.2. Allegation of Undervaluation of Goods:The main allegation was that the assessee paid duty on only one-third of the actual value of goods, with the balance received in cash without duty payment. Investigations revealed that the assessee had been undervaluing goods cleared by them. Evidence included pricelists, statements from employees and dealers, and data retrieved from a computer hard disk. The Tribunal found overwhelming evidence supporting the charge of undervaluation.3. Determination of Duty Liability and Penalties for Different Periods:The period involved was from 1-10-1999 to 17-10-2002. The Commissioner restricted the duty demand to dealings with five dealers who admitted to undervaluation, confirming Rs. 13,07,455/- instead of the proposed Rs. 1,92,95,946/-. The Tribunal directed a re-quantification of duty liability for two periods:- Before 1-7-2000: The concept of 'normal price' should be applied. The Commissioner was instructed to determine the normal price based on available evidence and compute the differential duty accordingly.- After 1-7-2000: The 'transaction value' concept should be applied. The differential duty should be confined to the available evidence of each transaction.4. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:Evidence included data retrieved from a computer, corroborated by statements from employees and dealers. The Tribunal noted that the statements were not retracted immediately and were corroborated by other evidence. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the demand was based on assumptions and found the evidence to be substantial and corroborative.5. Application of the Concept of 'Normal Price' and 'Transaction Value':- Normal Price (Before 1-7-2000): The Tribunal agreed that the normal price should be adopted but should be determined based on evidence, not merely the invoice price.- Transaction Value (After 1-7-2000): The Tribunal emphasized that each transaction's actual value should be considered, and the differential duty should be based on evidence of each transaction.Separate Judgments:The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-quantification of duty and determination of penalties based on their findings. The appeals were disposed of as follows:1. E/1008/2006: Remanded for re-quantification of duty and determination of penalty.2. E/1009/2006: Remanded for deciding the penalty based on duty liability.3. E/1002/2006 & E/1003/2006: Appeals rejected, confirming penalties and redemption fines.4. E/340/2006 (Revenue's appeal): Partially allowed in terms of remand directions.Conclusion:The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis and directed the Commissioner to re-quantify the duty liability for different periods based on the concepts of normal price and transaction value. The penalties and confiscations were upheld, and the appeals were disposed of with specific directions for re-assessment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found