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 overturns demands and penalties due to lack of evidence, unfair practices, and independent operations.

        Shiv Shankar Plywood, Jai Krishna Plywood, Mahadev Goel, Lalit Goel Versus CCE, Rohtak

        Shiv Shankar Plywood, Jai Krishna Plywood, Mahadev Goel, Lalit Goel Versus CCE, Rohtak - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Clandestine removal and undervaluation of goods.
        2. Clubbing of clearances of M/s. SSP and M/s. JKP.
        3. Imposition of penalties on M/s. SSP, M/s. JKP, and associated individuals.
        4. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses.
        5. Reliance on retracted statements and third-party documents.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Clandestine Removal and Undervaluation of Goods:
        The appellants, M/s. SSP and M/s. JKP, were alleged to have engaged in the clandestine manufacture and removal of plywood to evade duty. The investigation, based on intelligence gathered by the DGCEI, led to searches and the recovery of documents from various premises, including the residences of key individuals. The show cause notice demanded duty and imposed penalties based on these findings. However, the appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and relied heavily on retracted statements and documents recovered from third parties, specifically Shri Mahadev Goel, who retracted his statement and filed a police complaint alleging coercion.

        2. Clubbing of Clearances of M/s. SSP and M/s. JKP:
        The duty demand of Rs. 75,21,297 was made jointly and severally against both M/s. SSP and M/s. JKP. The appellants contended that both entities operated independently, with separate setups and no interlinked manufacturing processes. They argued that their clearances should not be clubbed as they were located 60 km apart and maintained independent records. The tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the clubbing of clearances and found the joint demand unsustainable.

        3. Imposition of Penalties on M/s. SSP, M/s. JKP, and Associated Individuals:
        Penalties were imposed on both companies and individuals associated with them. M/s. SSP and M/s. JKP were penalized under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while penalties were also imposed on key individuals under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants argued that the penalties were based on uncorroborated evidence and retracted statements. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had not provided a clear basis for the penalties, especially given the retraction of statements and the lack of corroborative evidence.

        4. Denial of Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
        The appellants sought cross-examination of various suppliers and buyers whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority. However, this request was denied without lawful reasons. The tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice were violated by denying cross-examination and noted that the adjudicating authority failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act.

        5. Reliance on Retracted Statements and Third-Party Documents:
        The case against the appellants relied heavily on the statements and documents recovered from Shri Mahadev Goel, who retracted his statements and filed a police complaint. The tribunal observed that the retraction and the lack of further statements from Shri Goel weakened the case. Additionally, the tribunal noted that the evidence from third-party documents was insufficient to substantiate the allegations of clandestine removal and undervaluation.

        Conclusion:
        The tribunal found that the demands and penalties imposed on the appellants were not sustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and the reliance on retracted statements and third-party documents. The denial of cross-examination further weakened the case. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found