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 Grants Exemption to Companies, Allows Cenvat Credit</h1> <h3>INDIAN RAYON AND INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I</h3> INDIAN RAYON AND INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 358 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 38/2003-C.E.2. Definition and applicability of 'purchase' and 'sale' under Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Liability of traders/dealers as manufacturers under Central Excise law.4. Entitlement to Cenvat credit for duty paid by job workers.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 38/2003-C.E.:The appellants, M/s. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd., M/s. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Arvind Clothing Limited, claimed exemption under Notification 38/2003-C.E., which exempts garments subjected to processes like labeling, relabeling, repacking from bulk packs to retail packs, and alteration subsequent to purchase. The Revenue denied the exemption on the ground that the garments received from job workers cannot be treated as 'purchased' from them. The Tribunal held that the term 'purchase' is not defined in the Notification and should be interpreted as per Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which includes any transfer of possession of goods for valuable consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the transactions between the appellants and job workers amounted to 'purchase' and thus, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption.2. Definition and applicability of 'purchase' and 'sale' under Central Excise Act, 1944:The term 'purchase' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, includes any transfer of possession of goods for valuable consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition does not require the transfer of property in the goods, merely the transfer of possession for consideration. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the absence of sales tax payment indicated no sale, stating that the Central Excise definition differs from the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, which requires transfer of property in goods. The Tribunal found that the appellants' transactions with job workers met the criteria for 'purchase' under the Central Excise Act.3. Liability of traders/dealers as manufacturers under Central Excise law:M/s. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. contended that they were not manufacturers but traders, as the actual manufacturing was done by independent job workers. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. M.M. Khambatwala, which held that job workers are the manufacturers when they produce goods independently, even if the raw materials are supplied by another party. The Tribunal found that M/s. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. were not manufacturers and thus, not liable to pay duty. Even if considered manufacturers, they would still be entitled to the exemption under Notification 38/2003-C.E.4. Entitlement to Cenvat credit for duty paid by job workers:The Tribunal noted that the appellants should be allowed to avail Cenvat credit for the duty paid by their job workers. This adjustment would reduce the appellants' liability. For M/s. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd., the Tribunal acknowledged that after adjusting the duty paid by job workers, the remaining duty demand was unsustainable. Consequently, the demand for interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act was also found to be unsustainable.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals of M/s. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd., M/s. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Arvind Clothing Limited, granting them the benefit of exemption under Notification 38/2003-C.E. and setting aside the Orders-in-Original. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of interpreting 'purchase' as per the Central Excise Act and recognized the independent manufacturing status of job workers, thereby relieving the appellants from the duty demands. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found