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

        2008 (4) TMI 119 - AT - 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

        Tribunal allows appeal of companies, adjusts penalties for duty demand and imposes reassessment The Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd., finding the demand and penalty imposed on them unsubstantiated. The appeal of M/s ...
                        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.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                            Tribunal allows appeal of companies, adjusts penalties for duty demand and imposes reassessment

                            The Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd., finding the demand and penalty imposed on them unsubstantiated. The appeal of M/s Kavantry Springs Fabrication Co. was allowed for reworking the duty demand. The penalty on Shri Kulbir Singh Uberoi related to M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd. was partly allowed, and the separate penalty on Mrs. Kukky Oberoi was set aside, with the firm's penalty to be reassessed.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Demand of duty and imposition of penalty on M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd.
                            2. Demand of duty and imposition of penalty on M/s Kavantry Springs Fabrication Co.
                            3. Penalty on Shri Kulbir Singh Uberoi, M.D. of M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd.
                            4. Penalty on Mrs. Kukky Oberoi, Proprietrix of M/s Kavantry Springs Fabrication Co.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Demand of duty and imposition of penalty on M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd.:
                            The Commissioner demanded duty of Rs. 66,63,601/- from M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd., based on the presumption that raw materials shown in invoices submitted to ASTRU were used in manufacturing leaf springs, which were cleared without payment of duty. The appellant argued that the invoices submitted to ASTRU were manipulated to inflate prices and were not related to actual purchases. The Tribunal noted that similar allegations against suppliers like M/s Sun Flag Iron & Steel Ltd. and others were found unsustainable by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the demand and penalty could not be sustained as the basis of the demand was not proven.

                            2. Demand of duty and imposition of penalty on M/s Kavantry Springs Fabrication Co.:
                            The Commissioner demanded duty of Rs. 23,23,349/- from M/s Kavantry Springs Fabrication Co., asserting they manufactured leaf springs and not just traded them. The appellant claimed they got leaf springs manufactured on a job work basis by M/s V. Jai Auto Industries. The Tribunal examined the delivery challans and found that the claim of sending only raw materials was an afterthought. The Tribunal held that M/s Kavantry Springs Fabrication Co. actually manufactured leaf springs, and M/s V. Jai Auto Industries only undertook heat treatment. However, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's submission to rework the duty demand based on the actual average weight and price of their products and granted the benefit of Cenvat credit on raw materials used. The Tribunal also accepted that the sale value should be treated as cum duty price and required the demand to be reworked accordingly.

                            3. Penalty on Shri Kulbir Singh Uberoi, M.D. of M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd.:
                            The Tribunal found that the imposition of penalty on Shri Kulbir Singh Uberoi for his alleged role in evasion by M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd. could not be sustained as the primary demand and penalty on the company were not warranted.

                            4. Penalty on Mrs. Kukky Oberoi, Proprietrix of M/s Kavantry Springs Fabrication Co.:
                            The Tribunal set aside the separate penalty on Mrs. Kukky Oberoi, noting there was no justification for a separate penalty on the proprietor in addition to the penalty on the firm. The Tribunal directed that penalties on the firm and Shri Kulbir Singh Uberoi be reconsidered based on the actual duty evasion determined after reworking the demand.

                            Conclusion:
                            The appeals were disposed of as follows:
                            - Appeal of M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd. was allowed.
                            - Appeal of M/s Kavantry Springs Fabrication Co. was allowed by way of remand for reworking the duty demand.
                            - Appeal by Shri Kulbir Singh Uberoi was partly allowed by not sustaining the penalty related to M/s Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd.
                            - Appeal by Mrs. Kukky Oberoi was allowed by setting aside the separate penalty on her. The penalty on the firm was to be re-determined.
                            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