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

        Tribunal rules in favor of appellants granting SSI exemption, deems CD data inadmissible

        Modern Laboratories, Shri Anil Kheria, Shri Arun Kheria Versus CCE, Indore

        Modern Laboratories, Shri Anil Kheria, Shri Arun Kheria Versus CCE, Indore - 2017 (358) E.L.T. 1179 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:
        1. Entitlement to SSI exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE.
        2. Admissibility of data retrieved from the CD in terms of section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act.
        3. Validity of demand confirmation based on data retrieved from the CD without further investigation.
        4. Admissibility of the statement made by Shri Arun Kheria during the investigation.
        5. Imposition of penalty on the appellants.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        (a) Entitlement to SSI exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE:
        The appellants argued that they were entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE for clearances made to Kerala and Tamil Nadu Government. They produced the required certificates in response to the show cause notice, which was not disputed. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption because the certificates were not supplied before the clearance of goods. However, the Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. and Dynaspede Integrated Systems Ltd., which held that the benefit of the notification could not be denied merely because the certificate was produced subsequently. The Tribunal concluded that the clearances made as per charts B, C, and F of the show cause notice were not sustainable, subject to the production of the required certificates.

        (b) Admissibility of data retrieved from the CD in terms of section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act:
        The Tribunal examined whether the data retrieved from the CD could be considered admissible evidence under section 36(b) of the Act. It referred to the case of Premium Packaging Pvt. Ltd., which outlined the conditions under section 36(b) for the admissibility of computer printouts. The Tribunal found that these conditions were not met in the present case, as the data was retrieved in the absence of the appellants, and the panchas were not allowed for cross-examination. Therefore, the data retrieved from the CD was deemed inadmissible.

        (c) Validity of demand confirmation based on data retrieved from the CD without further investigation:
        The Tribunal held that the data retrieved from the CD was not admissible evidence and noted that no further investigation was conducted to corroborate the data. Referring to the case of Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that tangible evidence is required to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance. Since no corroborative evidence was provided, the demand based on charts D and E was not sustainable.

        (d) Admissibility of the statement made by Shri Arun Kheria during the investigation:
        The Tribunal found that the statement made by Shri Arun Kheria, in which he agreed to pay duty on clearances to Kerala and Tamil Nadu Government, did not cast liability on the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had produced the required certificates under Notification No.108/95-CE, and thus, the demand could not be confirmed solely based on the statement. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the Supreme Court decision in D. Bhoormull, as there was no corroborative evidence supporting the statement.

        (e) Imposition of penalty on the appellants:
        Since the demands were not sustainable, the Tribunal concluded that the question of imposing penalties on the appellants did not arise. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal answered all issues in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and adherence to procedural requirements in cases involving clandestine manufacture and clearance.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found