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 decision: Penalty set aside, interest upheld. Exemption denied, duty payment before notice saves penalty.</h1> <h3>MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. Versus CCE., COCHIN</h3> MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. Versus CCE., COCHIN - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 363 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 8/2003 for SSI exemption eligibility.2. Calculation of aggregate value of clearances for the previous financial year.3. Time-barred demand and applicability of longer period.4. Bona fide belief and approach to the Department for clarification.5. Levying of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 8/2003The dispute revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003 dated 1-3-2003. The condition in Para 2(vii) stipulates that if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods exceeds Rs. 300 lakhs in the previous financial year, the exemption is not applicable. The appellant argued that the deletion of the condition regarding exempted and nil rate of duty goods cannot be applied for the year 2002-03. However, the Tribunal held that the Notification clearly states that the value of exempted and nil rate of duty goods should be included in calculating the aggregate value of clearances for the previous year. Therefore, the appellant's argument was rejected.Issue 2: Calculation of aggregate value of clearancesThe Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to include the value of exempted and nil rate of duty goods in calculating the aggregate value of clearances for the previous year, leading to the value exceeding Rs. 300 lakhs. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and distinguished the case laws cited by them, asserting that the Notification's method of computing clearances must be applied to the preceding year.Issue 3: Time-barred demand and longer periodWhile a part of the demand fell within the one-year limitation period, the Tribunal noted that the appellants did not inform the Department about the changes in the Notification and failed to clarify their eligibility for the exemption. As a result, the longer period was deemed applicable. However, the Tribunal observed that paying the duty before the show cause notice exempts the appellants from penalty, following previous decisions and legal precedents.Issue 4: Bona fide belief and Department approachThe Tribunal highlighted the appellants' lack of bona fide belief and failure to approach the Department for clarification regarding their eligibility for the exemption. This led to the conclusion that the longer period for demand was justified due to the appellants' inaction.Issue 5: Penalty under Section 11AC of the ActConsidering the duty payment before the show cause notice, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC but upheld the payment of interest until the date of payment. The decision was based on previous Tribunal rulings and legal precedents supporting penalty exemption when duty is paid before the issuance of a show cause notice.In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed, with the penalty under Section 11AC being set aside, but the payment of interest up to the date of payment being upheld. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 9-9-2008.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found