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 Appeal Success: Small-Scale Exemption Upheld, Evidence Deemed Unreliable</h1> <h3>Punmiya Metal Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II</h3> Punmiya Metal Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture.2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of small-scale exemption in the absence of a formal declaration.3. Validity of the LRs (Lorry Receipts) recovered from various transporters as evidence against the appellant.4. Correctness of the value of goods declared by the appellant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture:The appellant was engaged in redrawing duty-paid SS wire rods and copper/brass tubes/pipes. Revenue officers alleged that the process of drawing or redrawing amounts to manufacture as per Section Note 10 to Section XV and Section Note 2 to Chapter 74. The appellant argued that their final product was not 'wire' as defined in Note 1(o) of Chapter 72, which specifies that only products in coil form can be considered as wire. The appellant claimed they did not possess coiling machinery, and thus, no wire in coil form was produced. The Tribunal found substantial force in the appellant's argument, noting the absence of evidence that the product cleared was in coil form. Consequently, the process of drawing/redrawing did not amount to manufacture.2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of small-scale exemption in the absence of a formal declaration:The small-scale exemption was denied because the appellant failed to file a declaration as required under Notification No. 36/2001-CE(NT). The appellant argued that filing the declaration was a procedural requirement and not a pre-requisite for claiming exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. The Tribunal agreed, distinguishing this case from the Eagle Flask Industries case, where filing a declaration was mandatory. Therefore, the benefit of the small-scale exemption could not be denied merely for the failure to file the declaration.3. Validity of the LRs recovered from various transporters as evidence against the appellant:The allegations of clandestine removal were based on statements of transporters and LRs recovered from them. The appellant contended that such third-party evidence could not be relied upon without corroboration from their records. The Tribunal noted that many addresses in the LRs were fictitious or non-existent, and no delivery challans accompanied the LRs, casting doubt on their reliability. The Tribunal concluded that the LRs, being uncorroborated third-party documents, could not be relied upon to support the charge of clandestine removal.4. Correctness of the value of goods declared by the appellant:The Revenue alleged that the appellant underdeclared the cost of raw materials and suppressed production to remain within the exemption limit. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the Revenue, such as statements from various parties and discrepancies in addresses, was insufficient to establish underdeclaration or suppression. Consequently, the Tribunal did not uphold the Revenue's allegations regarding the value of goods declared by the appellant.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the process undertaken by the appellant did not amount to manufacture, the benefit of the small-scale exemption could not be denied due to procedural lapses, the LRs could not be relied upon as evidence of clandestine removal, and the allegations of underdeclaration of goods were not substantiated.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found