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
  • 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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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 Overturns Order: Insufficient Evidence of Undeclared Copper Wire Production & Excise Evasion.</h1> <h3>M/s Hind Metal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi</h3> The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal due to insufficient credible evidence by Revenue to establish clandestine manufacture and ... Clandestine manufacture and removal - Copper Wire - allegation made on the basis of machines found working in the units, the dairies recovered as well as the statement given by Rajesh Kumar Gupta, the Proprietor, and of two workers - Held that: - Even though the Rajesh Gupta in his statement decoded and explained the entries in the two note books and admitted to the clandestine clearances, he retracted his inculpatory statement the very next day - workers also during their cross examination before the Adjudicating Authority, have retracted their original statements and submitted that these statements were recorded under duress - the main evidence relied by the Department in the form of documentary as well as oral, are in jeopardy. The recovery of cash as well as the documentary evidence in the form of note books was made from the residence of Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Proprietor but the authenticity of the panchnama proceedings have been seriously questioned by the appellant - During the cross examination of the second panch witness, Shri L. N. Gupta, he submitted that he was not present at the residence of the proprietor during the period 7 am to 16:30 Hrs when the proceedings were already over and he was asked to sign the panchnama. These facts emerged only during his cross examination - In view of this the panchnama proceedings leading to recovery of cash and documentary evidence loses its authenticity and evidence recovered through such proceedings cannot be relied upon against the appellant. The charge of clandestine clearance needs to be established on the basis of credible and tangible evidence - In the present case the panchnama of the search proceedings at the residence stands vitiated - The statement recorded from the two workers as well as the proprietor which were originally inculpatory in nature stand retracted during various stages of the proceedings - also, the two suppliers of raw materials who had admitted to supply of wire rods to the appellant were manufacturers of wire rods which stands explained by the appellant as procured for used in their trading activity. The allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance have not been established satisfactorily by Revenue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of copper wire without payment of excise duty.Analysis:1. The appeal was against an Order-in-Original alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of copper wire without excise duty payment. Search operations revealed wire drawing activity, seized goods, incriminating evidence, and cash. Statements from the proprietor and workers initially incriminated the appellant.2. Appellant's Arguments:- Retraction of inculpatory statements by the proprietor and workers undermined evidentiary value.- Purchase of wire drawing machines after search contradicted clandestine manufacturing allegations.- Machinery purchase evidence supported by invoices and affidavit.- Requested setting aside of Central Excise duty demand.3. Revenue's Defense:- Upheld the impugned order based on incriminating statements and evidence.- Dismissed retractions as baseless and highlighted electricity consumption as proof.- Cited statements from suppliers confirming raw material sales to the appellant.- Argued for upholding the demand.4. Rejoinder:- Clarified raw material suppliers were for trading purposes, not manufacturing.- Mentioned the release of cash based on ownership claims by another entity.5. Tribunal's Decision:- Found main evidence questionable due to retractions and inconsistencies in statements.- Accepted appellant's explanation of machinery purchase timeline and rejected the plea of alibi.- Questioned the authenticity of panchnama proceedings and evidence recovery.- Emphasized the need for credible evidence to establish clandestine clearance.- Concluded allegations were not satisfactorily proven by Revenue, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found