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

        Tribunal Upholds Duty Demands on Calendered Fabrics, Denies Exemptions, and Affirms Procedural Violations

        SIDDESHWARl COTTON MILLS LTD. CALCUTTA & JATIA COTTON MILLS LTD. CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

        SIDDESHWARl COTTON MILLS LTD. CALCUTTA & JATIA COTTON MILLS LTD. CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 297 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:
        1. Whether the calendered fabrics manufactured and cleared by the appellants were liable to be charged to duty during the material period.
        2. Whether the demand for duty is hit by limitation.
        3. Whether the appellants were entitled to exemptions under Central Excise Notifications Nos. 230/77, 231/77, and 80/76.
        4. Whether Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules was correctly invoked.
        5. Whether the claim for freight and brokerage charges should be reconsidered.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Liability of Calendered Fabrics to Duty:
        The primary issue was whether calendered fabrics were subject to duty. The appellants argued that calendering, a finishing process using a plain roller machine, did not constitute "processing" as per the Central Excise Tariff (CET) and thus should not attract duty. However, the Tribunal noted that calendering is recognized as a finishing process designed to smooth and flatten fabric, conferring surface glaze, and is thus a process within the textile industry. The Tribunal referred to the amendments made to Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Item No. 19-I CET, which included "any other process" within the definition of "manufacture." The Tribunal concluded that calendering falls within this definition, making the calendered fabrics dutiable.

        2. Demand for Duty and Limitation:
        The appellants contended that the demand for duty was barred by limitation. The Tribunal examined the show cause notices and found that they were issued within the prescribed time limit. In the case of Siddeshwari Mills, the show cause notice was dated 12-11-1981 covering the period from 14-5-1981 to 19-9-1981. Similarly, for Jatia Mills, the notice was dated 10-11-1981 for the period from 12-5-1981 to 19-9-1981. Thus, the demands were within the statutory period, and the contention regarding limitation was dismissed.

        3. Exemption under Notifications:
        The appellants claimed exemptions under Notifications Nos. 230/77, 231/77, and 80/76. The Tribunal found that Notifications 230/77 and 231/77 exempted unprocessed cotton fabrics manufactured in powerlooms without processing plants. Since calendering was a process, the presence of a calendering machine in the appellants' factories disqualified them from these exemptions. Notification No. 80/76, which exempted fabrics subjected to certain finishing processes, was also found inapplicable as it applied only to factories solely engaged in calendering, which was not the case with the appellants.

        4. Invocation of Rule 9(2):
        The appellants argued that Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, which deals with clandestine removal of goods, was not applicable as there was no clandestine removal. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had manufactured and cleared excisable goods without following the prescribed excise formalities, thus contravening Rule 9(1). The Tribunal cited previous judgments and concluded that Rule 9(2) was correctly invoked in both cases.

        5. Claim for Freight and Brokerage Charges:
        In the case of Jatia Mills, the appellants sought reconsideration of their claim for freight and brokerage charges, which had been disallowed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim before the Collector and the Board. As no new material was presented at this stage, the Tribunal declined to remand the matter for fresh determination.

        Conclusion:
        Both appeals were rejected. The Tribunal upheld the duty demands and confirmed that the appellants were not entitled to the claimed exemptions. The invocation of Rule 9(2) was deemed appropriate, and the claim for freight and brokerage charges was not reconsidered due to lack of evidence.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found