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
  • 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

        -

        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>Interpreting Penal Provisions: Mens Rea, Proportionality, and Fundamental Rights</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus VIVEK RE-ROLLING MILLS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus VIVEK RE-ROLLING MILLS - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 672 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Interpretation of penal provisions under Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the initiation of penal proceedings and imposition of penalties.2. Whether penal provisions imposing mandatory minimum penalty without mens rea are excessive and unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.3. Application of the proportionality test in determining the validity of penal provisions.4. Impact of judicial decisions on the interpretation and application of penal provisions in tax laws.Issue 1: Interpretation of penal provisions under Rule 96ZP regarding initiation of penal proceedings and imposition of penalties:The Respondent argued that penal proceedings under Rule 96ZP must be initiated within the limitation period, and in the absence of mala fide, penalties should not be imposed. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Bansal Alloys & Metals (P) Ltd. v. UOI, it was contended that a reasonable period should be provided depending on the nature of the statute to avoid belated initiation of penal proceedings. On the other hand, the Appellant contended that there is a mandatory penalty prescribed by law, and relief from penalties should not be granted to defaulters. The Appellant relied on the decision in CCE, Mumbai v. Sunil Silk Mills to support this argument.Issue 2: Whether penal provisions imposing mandatory minimum penalty without mens rea are excessive and unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights:The Tribunal analyzed the proportionality of the imposition of penalties under Rule 96ZP. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd., it was observed that the mandatory minimum penalty without mens rea was considered excessive and an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights. The Court emphasized the importance of mens rea in legal consequences and held that penalties should be proportionate. The Tribunal noted that the decision was binding, and the Rule was struck down as ultra vires due to not meeting the proportionality test.Issue 3: Application of the proportionality test in determining the validity of penal provisions:The Tribunal highlighted that the power of the legislature is circumscribed by fundamental rights, and judicial review is permissible for excessive restrictions. The Court emphasized that the exercise of power by subordinate legislation for levying penalties should be limited to default 'with intent to evade duty.' The Tribunal concluded that mens rea is an essential principle for the consequence of law, and the Rule not meeting the proportionality test was deemed ultra vires.Issue 4: Impact of judicial decisions on the interpretation and application of penal provisions in tax laws:The judgment emphasized the significance of judicial decisions in interpreting and applying penal provisions in tax laws. It was noted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court is binding on the Tribunal, and the argument that mens rea is not essential was not acceptable based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross objection was disposed of in accordance with the judicial findings.---

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found