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>Court quashes show-cause notice, denies duty recovery. Petitioners entitled to restitution.</h1> <h3>SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2011 (272) E.L.T. 522 (Guj.) Issues Involved:1. Legality of seizure of records, documents, and goods.2. Whether Prilled Ammonium Nitrate (PAN) obtained from Ammonium Nitrate Melt (ANM) is excisable and if the process of prilling/evaporating moisture constitutes 'manufacture' under Central Excise law.3. Validity of actions taken by respondents based on a show-cause notice and demand for excise duty, penalty, and interest.4. Entitlement of the petitioner to restitution of amounts recovered as excise duties with interest.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Seizure of Records, Documents, and GoodsThe petitioners challenged the seizure of records and goods by the Central Excise Department under panchnamas dated 31-3-2003 and 11-6-2003. It was noted that the seized records and documents had already been returned to the petitioners, rendering this issue moot.2. Excisability and Manufacture of Prilled Ammonium Nitrate (PAN)The petitioners argued that the process of converting Ammonium Nitrate Melt (ANM) into Prilled Ammonium Nitrate (PAN) does not constitute 'manufacture' under Central Excise law. They relied on the Tribunal's decision in Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Anil Chemicals (P) Ltd., which held that mere improvement in quality and purity does not amount to manufacture. The Central Board of Excise and Customs had also issued Circular No. 44/89, stating that no excise duty should be charged on PAN obtained from ANM.The respondents, however, argued that the process of prilling does constitute manufacture, citing the Tribunal's decision in M/s. I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and the Larger Bench's decision in Supreme Chemical Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, which held that conversion of ANM into Ammonium Nitrate Flakes amounts to manufacture due to different physical characteristics and commercial names.The court noted that the Board did not rescind the Circular No. 44/89 even after these decisions, indicating that the Board did not intend to change its stance at the relevant time. The court held that the officers of the Central Excise Department are bound by the Circulars issued by the Board and cannot act contrary to them.3. Validity of Show-Cause Notice and Demand for Excise DutyThe show-cause notice dated 1st November 2003, demanding central excise duty, penalty, and interest, was issued before the Board withdrew Circular No. 44/89 on 18th April 2007. The Supreme Court in Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise and Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise held that Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department. The court concluded that the show-cause notice and the consequential demand were ab initio bad as they were contrary to the existing Circular of the Board.4. Restitution of Amounts Recovered as Excise DutiesThe court held that it was not permissible for the respondents to recover Central Excise duty from the petitioner company in respect of PAN obtained from ANM until the issuance of the subsequent Circular dated 18th April 2007. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to restitution of the amount recovered as excise duty till that date, in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The court quashed the impugned show-cause notice dated 1st November 2003 and held that the respondents could not recover Central Excise duty from the petitioner company for PAN obtained from ANM until the issuance of the subsequent Circular dated 18th April 2007. The petitioners are entitled to restitution of the amounts recovered as excise duty. The issue of whether the process of prilling amounts to manufacture was left open for determination by the appropriate forum. The petition succeeded to the extent mentioned, with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found