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

        2015 (5) TMI 168 - HC - 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

        High Court: Tribunal erred in rejecting extended limitation period. Willful suppression justifies longer period. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in ruling out the extended period of limitation under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section ...
                      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.

                          High Court: Tribunal erred in rejecting extended limitation period. Willful suppression justifies longer period.

                          The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in ruling out the extended period of limitation under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court found that the assessee's failure to disclose details and submission of false statements amounted to willful suppression, justifying the extended period of limitation. Precedents were cited to support the conclusion that deliberate suppression of facts and intent to evade duty warranted the extended period of limitation. The Court allowed the central excise appeal and quashed the Tribunal's order to the extent it rejected the extended period of limitation.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the extended period of limitation under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted in this caseRs.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Extended Period of Limitation:
                          The central issue revolves around the Tribunal's decision that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the absence of mala fide intent on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal had ruled that since the law was clarified by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. in 2010, and earlier decisions were in favor of the assessee, no mala fide intent could be attributed to the assessee, thus precluding the invocation of an extended period of limitation.

                          The High Court examined whether the Tribunal's decision was justified based on the facts and legal standards. The Court noted that the assessee had availed Cenvat Credit on items classified as "capital goods," which was later found inadmissible. The department issued a show-cause notice for recovery of the Cenvat Credit along with interest and penalties, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act, 1944, due to alleged willful suppression of facts by the assessee.

                          The High Court scrutinized the correspondence and interactions between the assessee and the department, highlighting that the assessee had disclosed full facts about the Cenvat Credit availed. The assessee argued that the department was aware of the Cenvat Credit details and that there was no deliberate concealment. The Tribunal had accepted this argument, noting that the law was only clarified in 2010 and prior decisions were in favor of the assessee.

                          However, the High Court found that the Tribunal had overlooked the fact that the assessee's own submissions before the Commissioner indicated that the items in question were not used for supporting structures, contradicting their later claims of bona fide doubt. The Court emphasized that under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring correct claims and maintaining proper records. The Court concluded that the assessee's failure to disclose details and submission of false statements amounted to willful suppression and contravention of the Act and rules with an intent to evade duty.

                          The High Court referred to precedents, including Usha Rectifier Corporation (I) Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam vs. Mehta & Company, to support its conclusion that the extended period of limitation was justified in cases of deliberate suppression of facts and intent to evade duty.

                          The Court distinguished the present case from other judgments cited by the assessee, such as Continental Foundation Joint Venture and Jai Prakash Industries Ltd., noting that those cases involved genuine doubts and divergent views, whereas the present case involved clear suppression of facts.

                          In conclusion, the High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in ruling out the extended period of limitation. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the department, and the Tribunal's order was quashed to the extent it precluded the extended period of limitation. The central excise appeal was allowed.
                          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