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 penalties on SFL and directors for lack of evidence

        Shah Foils Limited, Shri Kartik R Shah, Shri Ramesh M Shah Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Surat-i, ii, Rajkot, Ahmedabad-iii

        Shah Foils Limited, Shri Kartik R Shah, Shri Ramesh M Shah Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Surat-i, ii, Rajkot, Ahmedabad-iii - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods by M/s Shah Foils Ltd (SFL).
        2. Allegations of undervaluation of goods by M/s SFL.
        3. Allegations of availing credit without actual receipt of goods by M/s SFL.
        4. Imposition of penalties on M/s SFL and its directors.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Allegations of Clandestine Removal of Goods:
        The demand against M/s SFL was based on data retrieved from pen drives and loose papers seized from a locker, which allegedly indicated clandestine clearances. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, relying on statements from brokers and buyers, which were deemed contradictory and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found that the data from the pen drives and loose papers alone could not substantiate the allegations without independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of following Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, which mandates cross-examination of witnesses whose statements are relied upon. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of cross-examination and the lack of corroborative evidence rendered the allegations unsustainable.

        2. Allegations of Undervaluation of Goods:
        The demand for undervaluation was based on ledger accounts "Direct Purchases (Value Diff.)" and "Direct Sales (Value Diff.)" found in the pen drives. The adjudicating authority alleged that M/s SFL recovered additional amounts in cash over the invoice value. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of any corroborative evidence, such as proof of receipt of additional consideration. The Tribunal found that the statements relied upon were inconsistent and lacked substantial evidence. Consequently, the demand on the grounds of undervaluation was deemed unsustainable.

        3. Allegations of Availing Credit Without Actual Receipt of Goods:
        The demand was based on the ledger account "Smi (Cash)" containing entries marked "Only Bills," implying receipt of invoices without goods. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegation, such as statements from suppliers or other corroborative evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the Gujarat VAT forms indicated the actual movement of goods, contradicting the allegation. Hence, the demand was found unsustainable.

        4. Imposition of Penalties:
        Penalties were imposed on M/s SFL and its directors under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal found that the penalties were based on the same uncorroborated evidence as the demands. Given the lack of substantial evidence and the procedural lapses, the Tribunal set aside the penalties.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal set aside the demands and penalties imposed on M/s SFL and its directors, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence and procedural lapses in the investigation. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found