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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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

        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>High Court overturns Tribunal's order on Central Excise duty pre-deposit, reopens Stay Petition for review</h1> <h3>M/s. Devis Manufacturing Works and Shri Bijoy Gupta Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V</h3> The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order directing the Applicant to pre-deposit Central Excise duty, leading to a fresh consideration of the Stay ... Irregular CENVAT Credit - Applicant availed irregular credit of CENVAT on various inputs which they never received physically in their factory premises and utilized the said irregular credit for payment of duty on the finished goods clerared by them - Held that:- out of total purported clearances of 123 consignments involving Rs.16,43,12,296/, 16 consignments involving Rs.9,80,55,155 (nearly 60%) were purportedly transported to Chattisgarh, Raipur and Orissa. On enquiry with the Check Post authorities, no such consignments crossed the said Checkgate and the stamp put on impugned challans were found fake and not signed by any officer of the Commercial Tax Department. Further M/s.Essel Transport purportedly transported 14 consignments valued at Rs.7,50,26,665/- (approx.) to consignees in Chattisgarh and Orissa, but on enquiry M/s.Essel Transport was found to be a bogus firm. From the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above that the issue involved relates of appreciation of evidences produced by both sides which can be taken up at the time of disposal of their appeals. However, at this juncture , keeping in view the above facts, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the Applicants have not been able to make a case for full waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. In these circumstances keeping in view the interest of Revenue and principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in disposal of the Stay Applications, we feel it appropriate to direct the Applicant to deposit 25% of the duty confirmed against them within 8(eight) weeks - Conditional stay granted. Issues:1. Dismissal of Miscellaneous Application and Appeals for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Allegation of irregular credit of CENVAT and non-receipt of inputs by the Applicant.3. Financial hardship plea and lack of evidence presented by the Applicant.4. Analysis of evidences by the adjudicating Commissioner regarding the use of inputs and manufacturing activities.5. Decision on the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.Analysis:1. The Tribunal initially directed the Applicant to pre-deposit 25% of Central Excise duty within a specified timeframe. However, due to an ex parte order, the Applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application citing non-receipt of any notice. The High Court later set aside the Tribunal's orders, leading to a fresh consideration of the Stay Petition.2. The case involved allegations that the Applicant availed irregular credit of CENVAT without physically receiving various inputs in their factory premises. The adjudicating Commissioner confirmed a substantial demand along with interest and penalties against the Applicant and its Proprietor.3. The Applicant claimed to have faced financial crisis and explained their manufacturing activities conducted in a rented factory premises. However, the lack of concrete evidence supporting their financial hardship plea weakened their argument.4. The adjudicating Commissioner extensively analyzed the evidence, concluding that the inputs were not received or used in manufacturing the finished goods. Various discrepancies were noted, including inadequate infrastructure for production and inconsistencies in supplier and customer statements.5. Considering the facts presented, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to justify a full waiver of pre-deposit. As per established legal principles and to safeguard the Revenue's interest, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to deposit 25% of the confirmed duty within a specified timeframe, with the balance dues waiver upon compliance, and the recovery stayed during the appeal process. The Stay Petition was disposed of based on these terms.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found