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
  • 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

        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 affirms decision on duty-free imports, imposes penalties.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Original Authority, dismissing the Revenue's appeal against a 100% EOU accused of diverting duty-free imported ... Imposition of penalty u/r 25 of the Central Excise Rules - 100% EOU - spices - duty free import of cloves for use in the manufacture of spices - violation of the provisions of Export Import Policy, 2002-2007 read with Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rule 1993, Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944 - alleged diversion of 130.31 M.T. of imported cloves - Held that: - for making such allegation, some positive evidence should have been brought on record by the Revenue. The allegation is sought to be sustained by the various inferences like respondent not using adequate power, certain sales in DTA not admitted by the buyers, certain transports not evidenced, etc. These evidences can at best act as corroboration to a positive evidence of diversion. Otherwise, in the absence of any positive evidence, these pieces of alleged corroboration cannot by themselves legally sustain the allegation of diversion of huge quantity of imported duty free cloves. In the appeal, the Revenue has not brought out any material evidence, which will prompt us to interfere with the impugned order. We find no reason to arrive at a different conclusion based on the evidences analyzed by the Original Authority. Imposition of penalty on Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal who is a major buyer of the product manufactured by the respondent company u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - he tried to mis-lead the Department and hamper the investigation by creating firms in the name of dummy owners and in collusion with others - Held that: - in view of the main conclusion arrived at by the Original Authority, no penalty could be imposed on Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal and as such, we find that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue on this ground also. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Alleged diversion of duty-free imported items, imposition of excise duty, penalty on directors, imposition of penalty on an individual.In this case, the Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I, alleging that the respondent, a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of spices, diverted duty-free imported cloves and did not utilize them for the intended purpose. The Revenue sought to demand customs duty and recover short-paid central excise duty on advance DTA sales. The Original Authority found no evidence to sustain the diversion allegation but held the respondent liable for excise duty on clearance to DTA and imposed penalties. The Revenue contended that all facts were not considered, and there was no evidence of transportation to outstation buyers or satisfactory establishment of product manufacture. The Tribunal noted the presence of a significant quantity of final product during verification and upheld the Original Authority's findings, emphasizing the lack of positive evidence for diversion. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order based on the evidence analyzed.Regarding the penalty on Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, the Tribunal acknowledged the lack of a specific finding by the Original Authority. It was revealed that Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal faced allegations of misleading the Department and hindering the investigation. However, due to the main conclusion reached by the Original Authority, no penalty could be imposed on him. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Original Authority regarding the diversion allegation and the penalty on the individual.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found