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
  • 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

        -

        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 order, grants relief to appellant for procedural lapses under EPCG scheme</h1> <h3>M/s. Regency Ceramics Ltd., M/s. Regency Glazes Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai</h3> M/s. Regency Ceramics Ltd., M/s. Regency Glazes Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai - 2018 (363) E.L.T. 293 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues Involved:1. Alleged installation of imported capital goods at unapproved premises.2. Requirement and validity of installation certificate.3. Compliance with Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme conditions.4. Demand of duty, confiscation, and penalties for alleged violations.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Installation of Imported Capital Goods at Unapproved Premises:The department alleged that M/s. Regency Ceramics Ltd. (RCL) installed imported capital goods at the premises of M/s. Regency Glazes Ltd. (RGL) instead of RCL's factory, thus violating Notification No. 55/2003-Cus. The appellant contended that the goods were initially installed at RCL and later moved to RGL due to environmental concerns, with management's consent. The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed initially installed at RCL, supported by an installation certificate from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise dated 24.08.2007. The subsequent relocation to RGL was acknowledged and regularized by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (Jt. DGFT), who imposed only a nominal penalty for the procedural lapse.2. Requirement and Validity of Installation Certificate:The department argued that the installation certificate should have been issued by the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise within six months of import, as per Notification No. 55/2003-Cus. The appellant initially provided a Chartered Engineer's certificate, which is permitted under the Handbook of Procedures for the EPCG scheme. The Tribunal noted that while the notification requires a certificate from the AC/DC, the appellant later produced such a certificate dated 24.08.2007, confirming the installation at RCL. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant complied with the substantive requirement of installation, and the procedural lapse was later rectified.3. Compliance with EPCG Scheme Conditions:The appellant fulfilled the export obligation under the EPCG scheme, as evidenced by a certificate from the DGFT dated 18.10.2007. The Jt. DGFT's order dated 09.04.2008 confirmed that the appellant met the export obligation and used the imported goods for the intended purpose. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were not sold or disposed of improperly but were used as intended, fulfilling the scheme's objectives. The Jt. DGFT regularized the procedural lapse of not informing about the relocation to RGL, imposing a nominal penalty.4. Demand of Duty, Confiscation, and Penalties for Alleged Violations:The department's demand for duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties were based on the alleged violation of installation requirements and the non-production of the AC/DC certificate within the prescribed period. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions constituted a procedural lapse rather than a substantive violation. The Jt. DGFT's regularization of the lapse and the fulfillment of the export obligation negated the need for such severe penalties. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mangalore Chemicals, the Tribunal held that non-observance of a procedural condition does not justify the denial of duty exemption or imposition of penalties.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, emphasizing that the procedural lapse was rectified, the export obligation was fulfilled, and the substantive conditions of the EPCG scheme were met. The decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between procedural and substantive compliance in regulatory frameworks.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found