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>Tribunal Overturns Excise Commissioner's Order, Validates Appellant's Duty Payment Method</h1> <h3>M/s. Tata Steel Limited (Bearing Division) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate</h3> M/s. Tata Steel Limited (Bearing Division) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate - TMI Issues Involved:1. Reissuance of Show Cause Notice on the same issue.2. Violation of principles of natural justice.3. Requirement of reversal of credit on inputs in waste and scrap.4. Payment of duty on waste and scrap.5. Demand barred by limitation.6. Erroneous and inflated duty demand.Detailed Analysis:1. Reissuance of Show Cause Notice on the Same Issue:The appellant contended that an earlier Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the same issue for a part of the period involved was adjudicated and dropped by the Commissioner in an order dated 25.05.2004, which was accepted by the Department. The appellant argued that the Commissioner erred in taking a contrary stand in the present case on identical allegations/grounds, violating the principle of res judicata. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CCE Vs. Novapan Industries Ltd., which established that the Department cannot take a contrary stand in subsequent cases once the principles have been accepted in an earlier case.2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The appellant argued that they were not granted an opportunity for a personal hearing, rendering the impugned order violative of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in their decision, focusing instead on the substantive issues of the case.3. Requirement of Reversal of Credit on Inputs in Waste and Scrap:The appellant argued that there is no provision under Rule 4(5)(a) or Rule 4(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004, requiring reversal of credit on inputs in waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end. The Tribunal agreed, referencing several decisions, including Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE and National Engineering Ind. Ltd. Vs. CCE, which held that no liability exists on the principal manufacturer for waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end post-1.4.2000.4. Payment of Duty on Waste and Scrap:The appellant contended that duty was paid on the waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end, which should render the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed paid duty on the waste and scrap based on the value of similar waste and scrap generated and sold from their factory. This method was previously accepted by the jurisdictional Commissioner in the order dated 25.05.2004. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's contrary finding in the impugned order was erroneous.5. Demand Barred by Limitation:The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation, citing the principle laid down in ECE Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE and Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in their decision, focusing on the substantive merits of the case.6. Erroneous and Inflated Duty Demand:The appellant contended that the duty demand was based on an inflated input price without disclosing the basis in the SCN, resulting in an inflated demand. The Tribunal did not specifically address the issue of inflated input prices in their decision.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal held that the appellant's method of valuation and payment of duty on waste and scrap was correct and previously accepted by the Department. The Tribunal also found that the Department could not take a contrary stand in the present case, following the principle of res judicata. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal precedents and the CBEC Circular F.No.B-4/7/2000-TRU dated 03.04.2000, which clarified that CENVAT credit is admissible for inputs contained in waste, refuse, or by-products.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found