Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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 Upheld Duty Demand on Tubular Poles, Allowed Cenvat Credit</h1> <h3>M/s Kirat Fabricators Versus CCE & ST, Jammu & Kashmir</h3> The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on tubular poles manufactured by the appellant from January 2012 to November 2012, allowing Cenvat credit for inputs ... Waiver of pre deposit - Area Based Exemption under Notification No. 56/02-CE - either any duty was being paid in respect of the tubular poles nor the exemption under the above-mentioned notification was availed. - Held that:- Appellant did not pay the duty in respect of clearances of poles at the time of commencing commercial production in the year 2009 in view of the Apex court’s judgment in the case of Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. CCE, Kolkata (2006 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT ) while they in view of the Apex court’s judgment dated 28/3/08 in the case of Prachi Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh (2008 (3) TMI 25 - Supreme court) were liable to pay duty on tubular poles. The show cause notice for demand of duty for the period from January 2012 to November 2012 has been issued on 05/2/13 and the duty demand is within the normal limitation period. We are of prima facie view that in view of the Apex court’s judgment in the case of Prachi Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), the appellant shall be liable to pay duty in respect of the clearances of tubular poles during the period of dispute. - this is not the case for total waiver. - Partial stay granted. Issues:1. Whether duty is payable on the clearances of tubular poles manufactured by the appellant during the period from January 2012 to November 2012Rs.2. Whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of steel tubular polesRs.3. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC is justifiedRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant, a manufacturer of tubular poles and accessories, commenced commercial production in 2009. The appellant applied for Central Excise registration covering only accessories, not tubular poles, due to the judgment in Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. CCE, Kolkata. However, the Apex Court's subsequent judgment in Prachi Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh held that joining pipes to make poles amounts to manufacture. The Department issued a show cause notice in 2013 for duty demand on tubular poles cleared from January 2012 to November 2012. The Commissioner confirmed duty demand of &8377; 1,11,74,209/-, allowing Cenvat credit for inputs and imposing a penalty of &8377; 6,64,546/-. The appellant argued ignorance of the law and requested waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal found the duty demand valid under the new legal position but allowed Cenvat credit, reducing the net duty liability to about &8377; 31,00,000/-. The appellant was directed to deposit &8377; 6,00,000/- within eight weeks, with the balance waived for appeal hearing.Issue 2:The Commissioner allowed Cenvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing steel tubular poles, which was quantified by the Range Officer. The appellant contended they would be eligible for Cenvat credit of about &8377; 80,83,283/-, reducing their net duty liability. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on Cenvat credit, considering it in the net duty liability calculation.Issue 3:The Commissioner imposed a penalty of &8377; 6,64,546/- on the appellant under Section 11AC. The appellant argued against the penalty, citing their compliance with filing ER-1 returns and the subsequent show cause notice. The Tribunal did not specifically address the penalty issue in the judgment, as the focus was on the duty demand and Cenvat credit. Therefore, the penalty imposed remains upheld based on the Commissioner's order.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand on tubular poles, allowed Cenvat credit for inputs, and directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount while waiving the balance for appeal hearing. The penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 11AC was not specifically addressed in the Tribunal's judgment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found