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 declares central excise rule unconstitutional, allowing Cenvat Credit use for interest payment.</h1> <h3>MESSRS SHREEJI SURFACE COATINGS PVT LTD & 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 2</h3> MESSRS SHREEJI SURFACE COATINGS PVT LTD & 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - 2015 (320) E.L.T. 764 (Guj.) Issues Involved:1. Validity of Subrule (3A) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. Legality of the adjudicating authority's order dated 27.07.2010 and the appellate order dated 21.12.2010.3. Utilization of Cenvat Credit for payment of interest on delayed excise duty.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Subrule (3A) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:The petitioners challenged the orders based on Subrule (3A) of Rule 8, which mandates that in case of default in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days, the assessee must clear goods on actual payment of duty without availing Cenvat Credit. This provision was scrutinized for its reasonableness and constitutionality. The Court, in Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India, declared the portion of the rule requiring payment without utilizing Cenvat Credit as ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court observed that the rule did not differentiate between willful defaulters and those defaulting due to financial constraints, thus imposing an unreasonable and harsh restriction on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The rule was deemed to create an undue burden on assessees, making it virtually impossible for them to recover from financial difficulties, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Legality of the Adjudicating Authority's Order Dated 27.07.2010 and the Appellate Order Dated 21.12.2010:The adjudicating authority issued a showcause notice and subsequently confirmed the duty demand with interest and penalties, which was upheld by the appellate authority. These orders were based on the invalidated portion of Subrule (3A) of Rule 8. The Court noted that since the orders were founded on a rule that was declared unconstitutional, they could not survive. The reliance on the invalidated portion of the rule rendered the orders null and void.3. Utilization of Cenvat Credit for Payment of Interest on Delayed Excise Duty:The petitioners paid interest on delayed excise duty using Cenvat Credit, which the department deemed irregular based on Subrule (3A) of Rule 8. The Court found that the petitioners' subsequent clearances were stigmatized solely because of this payment method. Given that the requirement to pay without utilizing Cenvat Credit was struck down, the petitioners' use of Cenvat Credit for interest payment could not be considered irregular. The Court emphasized that the facts of the case fell squarely within the invalidated portion of the rule, thus invalidating the department's stance.Conclusion:The impugned orders were set aside, and the petition was allowed. The Court held that the orders based on the unconstitutional portion of Subrule (3A) of Rule 8 could not stand, thereby making the rule absolute.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found