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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Central Excise

        2011 (5) TMI 721 - AT - Central Excise

        📋
        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

        Tribunal overturns order due to lack of evidence. Appeal stresses need for substantive proof. The Tribunal set aside the order, finding no concrete evidence to support allegations of clandestine removal or the shortage of MS ingots. The appeal was ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal overturns order due to lack of evidence. Appeal stresses need for substantive proof.

                          The Tribunal set aside the order, finding no concrete evidence to support allegations of clandestine removal or the shortage of MS ingots. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for substantive evidence and rejecting reliance on assumptions and mathematical calculations related to electricity consumption.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of MS ingots.
                          2. Shortage of 40.305 MTs of MS ingots.
                          3. Basis for demand of duty and imposition of penalty.
                          4. Validity of the notice on the grounds of assumption and presumption.
                          5. Limitation period for issuing the notice.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Allegations of Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of MS Ingots:
                          The Revenue alleged that the appellant was involved in clandestine manufacture and removal of MS ingots without payment of duty. The basis for this allegation was the comparison of electric power consumption with the recorded production. The appellant contended that the production records showed less production on certain days despite similar power consumption due to various factors such as technical failures and the production of inferior quality goods that were re-melted. The Tribunal found that the entire case of the Revenue was based on assumptions and presumptions without substantive and positive evidence of clandestine activities. The Tribunal emphasized that findings of clandestine removal must be based on concrete evidence, not merely on input-output calculations or electricity consumption.

                          2. Shortage of 40.305 MTs of MS Ingots:
                          During the inspection, a shortage of 40.305 MTs of MS ingots was found in the appellant's stock. The appellant argued that the shortage was calculated based on the average weight of ingots and not on actual weighment, making the findings unreliable. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting the lack of evidence of any clearance of the said goods and the method of calculating the shortage, which was based on estimations rather than actual weighment.

                          3. Basis for Demand of Duty and Imposition of Penalty:
                          The Revenue proposed to confirm a duty demand of Rs. 33,85,420/- along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 98,667/- for the alleged shortage of 40.305 MTs of MS ingots. The appellant contended that the demand was based on assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found that the demand was based on mathematical calculations related to electricity consumption rather than concrete evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal reiterated that such calculations could not form the basis for confirming the demand or imposing penalties.

                          4. Validity of the Notice on the Grounds of Assumption and Presumption:
                          The appellant argued that the notice for clandestine production and removal was issued on assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal supported this view, stating that the findings of clandestine removal must be based on substantive evidence. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, Cochin, which held that clandestine removal findings require clear evidence and cannot be based on production suppression or electricity consumption alone.

                          5. Limitation Period for Issuing the Notice:
                          The appellant contended that the notice was not sustainable on the grounds of limitation, as they had been regularly filing monthly returns of production and removal. The Tribunal did not specifically address the limitation issue in detail, as it found the entire basis of the demand unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding no substantive evidence to support the allegations of clandestine removal or the shortage of MS ingots. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence for allegations of clandestine activities and rejected the reliance on assumptions and mathematical calculations related to electricity consumption.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found