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>Tribunal Reverses Order, Grants Appeals, Stresses Evidence</h1> <h3>Kalindi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE., Raipur </h3> The tribunal overturned the impugned order, allowing all three appeals and providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment emphasized the ... Clandestine removal of goods - sponge iron - Discrepancy in stock found - Goods cleared without payment of duty - Held that:- Dip reading method adopted by the officers lead to wrong assessment of weight of the sponge iron and the allegation of the clandestine removal cannot be upheld against the assesee. In any case, such shortages detected by the officers come to only 6.40%, which cannot be held to be abnormal. It is well settled law that shortage itself without any other corroborative evidence, cannot lead to the inevitable conclusion of the clandestine removal - As regards the duty demand of ₹ 4,45,352/- in respect of 158.900 MTs of sponge iron based upon computer printout resumed from the appellant’s factory, it is the appellant submission that the same gives details of clearances to be made by them along with vehicle numbers. Vehicle numbers pertain to the contact transporters in order to confirm availability of vehicle. If vehicle is available, the transporter provides vehicle number which is entered in the computer along with quantity of sponge iron to be dispatched. At times on eleventh hour the vehicle is not made available by the transporters or after arrival of vehicle the order dispatched is cancelled and the vehicles leave the factory but the incoming and outgoing time is recorded. Computer printout and respect of which the appellant has already given explanation there is virtually no evidence on record to show clandestine clearance. I really fail to understand that when vehicle numbers were available with the Revenue, no enquiry was conducted. Further, there is no statement of the buyers or no evidence relatable to the procurement of extra raw materials or receipt of payment from the alleged buyers. In such scenario, allegation of clandestine removal cannot be upheld - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Investigation of duty evasion based on shortages and discrepancies in production records, confirmation of duty demand, imposition of penalties on directors, validity of clandestine removal allegations, evidence required for duty confirmation based on statutory records and daily production records.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in sponge iron manufacturing, faced duty evasion allegations after discrepancies were found during a Central Excise officers' visit. Shortages and discrepancies in production records led to duty demands amounting to significant sums. Statements from directors and comparisons of various production records were pivotal in the investigation.The duty demand of &8377; 1,46,568/- was contested by the appellant, claiming the shortages were estimated, not accurately weighed. The method of assessing sponge iron weight through dip reading was deemed unreliable due to the hopper's design, leading to a possibility of errors. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing the lack of concrete evidence and the insignificance of the detected shortages as per legal precedents.Regarding the duty demand of &8377; 4,35,352/- based on computer printouts, the appellant explained discrepancies as logistical issues with transporters, not indicative of clandestine activities. The tribunal noted the absence of substantial evidence supporting clandestine clearances, emphasizing the need for buyer statements or procurement evidence to uphold such allegations.The duty demand of &8377; 2,65,606/- stemmed from comparisons between statutory and daily production records. The adjudicating authority accepted the inclusion of sponge iron fine in the RG-1 register, leading to a partial confirmation of the demand. However, without evidence of goods movement, transporter details, or excess payments, the tribunal dismissed the clandestine removal allegations.Ultimately, the tribunal overturned the impugned order, allowing all three appeals and providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and adherence to legal principles in confirming duty demands and penalizing parties involved in excise duty evasion cases.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found