1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal emphasizes evidence in duty liability case under Pan Masala Rules, 2008</h1> The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision regarding duty liability under Pan Masala Rules, 2008, emphasizing that sealed and non-functional ... - Issues involved: Determination of duty liability u/s Pan Masala Rules, 2008 based on annual capacity of production considering sealed machines.Issue 1: Fixation of annual capacity of productionThe Revenue filed appeals challenging the order of lower authorities regarding the fixation of duty liability under Pan Masala Rules, 2008. The dispute centered around the determination of capacity in relation to 59 machines, some of which were sealed by the Revenue during the relevant period. The lower authorities emphasized that the Rules apply to operating machines and not to those that are sealed and non-functional. The contention was that duty liability cannot be imposed for sealed machines. The Revenue argued that since the sealed machines had wheels and could potentially be used for production, they should be factored into duty liability calculation.Issue 2: Interpretation of the rulesThe Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the decisions of the lower authorities. It was undisputed that the machines were sealed, and the Revenue's argument was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal noted that breaking the seals on the machines would require permission from the Revenue, indicating that they were not in operational use. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the position taken by the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to legal provisions and the significance of factual evidence in determining duty liability. The decision underscores the need for concrete proof and adherence to established procedures in tax matters, particularly when dealing with the interpretation of regulatory rules such as the Pan Masala Rules, 2008.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
