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 overturns duty evasion case due to lack of evidence and flawed assumptions.</h1> <h3>Krishna Bottlers (Vijayawada) (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur</h3> Krishna Bottlers (Vijayawada) (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur - [1999 (32) RLT 845 (CEGAT)] Issues Involved:1. Alleged manufacture and clearances of aerated water without payment of duty.2. Alleged clandestine manufacture of 30,000 cases of Soda.3. Validity of the show-cause notice based on alleged receipt of concentrates.4. Evidentiary value of the unsigned, unauthenticated statement and typed information.Summary:1. Alleged manufacture and clearances of aerated water without payment of duty:The case arose from an Order-in-Original dated 24.12.1997, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 33,85,416/- for the alleged manufacture and clearances of aerated water (Pepsi and 7-Up) under heading No. 2201.12 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The demand also included the alleged manufacture of 30,000 cases of Soda for the period from May 1991 to the issuance of the show cause notice on 28.5.96, invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The case was based on intelligence gathered by the Directorate General of Anti Evasion, which led to searches and recovery of certain records from the factory-cum-registered office on 31.8.94.2. Alleged clandestine manufacture of 30,000 cases of Soda:The show-cause notice also alleged the clandestine manufacture and removal of 30,000 cases of Soda, without providing any specific details about the materials and methods used for such manufacture.3. Validity of the show-cause notice based on alleged receipt of concentrates:The appellants contended that the factory was under lock-out due to labor problems from May 1991, supported by evidence from the Labour Department. They also provided evidence showing that the concentrates were diverted to M/s. Universal Drinks Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur, including letters, consignment notes, invoices, and journal vouchers. The Commissioner rejected these evidences as an after-thought without substantial reasoning. The Tribunal found that the show-cause notice lacked a prima facie basis and was built on assumptions and conjectures without sufficient evidence.4. Evidentiary value of the unsigned, unauthenticated statement and typed information:The department's case heavily relied on an unsigned and unauthenticated typed statement found during the search, which allegedly detailed a scheme for clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal held that such a document could not have any evidentiary value and could not be the basis for establishing clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence regarding the procurement of other necessary raw materials, electricity consumption, and financial transactions to support the allegations.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the show-cause notice and the subsequent order lacked a proper foundation and were based on insufficient evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief as per law.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found