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

        Appeal granted under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. emphasizing public interest over conflicting rulings

        HY-TUF STEELS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA

        HY-TUF STEELS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA - 2015 (327) E.L.T. 531 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:
        1. Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E.
        2. Requirement of the certificate being issued in the name of the manufacturer.
        3. Adherence to the conditions of the exemption notification.
        4. Legal precedents and their applicability.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Eligibility for the Benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E.:
        The core issue was whether the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., which exempts excisable goods supplied to projects financed by international organizations and approved by the Government of India. The appellant had cleared TMT bars under this notification for projects funded by the Asian Development Bank and World Bank.

        2. Requirement of the Certificate Being Issued in the Name of the Manufacturer:
        The exemption was contested because the Project Authority Certificates were issued in the name of the contractors, not the manufacturer (appellant). The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty of Rs. 17,90,592/- and imposed a penalty and interest, stating that the exemption was not applicable unless the certificate was issued in the name of the manufacturer.

        3. Adherence to the Conditions of the Exemption Notification:
        The appellant argued that they had produced the necessary certificates before clearing the goods, and these goods were indeed used for the intended projects. They cited several legal precedents supporting their case, emphasizing that the goods were used in the earthquake rehabilitation project, thus meeting the notification's intent.

        4. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability:
        The appellant referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CCE, Pondichery v. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. and other Tribunal decisions that supported their claim. The Departmental Representative, however, cited the contrary decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Dee Development Engineers Ltd., which required strict adherence to the certificate naming requirements.

        Judgment Analysis:

        Factual Background:
        It was undisputed that the appellant filed the necessary certificates and that the TMT bars were used in the funded projects. The primary legal question was whether the exemption could apply when the certificate was not in the manufacturer's name.

        Legal Reasoning:
        The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which ruled that the exemption applied as long as the goods were used in the project, irrespective of whether they were supplied directly to the project implementing authority or through contractors. This judgment emphasized the public interest and the intent behind the notification.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal found that the appellant met the notification's conditions since the goods were used in the intended projects. They followed the later judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras over the earlier Punjab & Haryana High Court decision, as there was no conflicting jurisdictional High Court ruling. Consequently, the appellant was deemed eligible for the exemption, and the impugned order was set aside.

        Final Order:
        The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The Tribunal pronounced this judgment in court on 22-10-2013.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found