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>Case on Central Excise duty evasion in Packaged Drinking Water manufacturing results in party's victory over Revenue's appeal.</h1> <h3>Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow Versus M/s Bohra Sales & Trading</h3> The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of goods without payment of Central Excise duty in the manufacturing of Packaged Drinking water. The ... Clandestine removal - SSI Exemption - no evidence produced by Revenue to prove clandestine activities - Held that:- The Revenue has not advanced any further evidence to show the clandestine activities of the respondents. It is well settled law that clandestine removal allegations are required to be established by sufficient and positive evidence and the same cannot be upheld on the basis of surmises and conjecture - demand cannot be upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of Central Excise duty, validity of seizure of goods, confirmation of duty demand, imposition of interest and penalties, ownership and genuineness of seized register, applicability of SSI exemption, confiscation of goods, sufficiency of evidence for clandestine activities.Analysis:1. Clandestine Removal Allegations:The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of goods without payment of Central Excise duty. The party was engaged in manufacturing Packaged Drinking water under CETH 22. The department seized goods valued at Rs. 91,872 with duty involvement of Rs. 11,455, suspected to be intended for removal without payment of duty. The party denied the veracity of the seized BST register, leading to show cause notices and confirmation of duty demand for various periods under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1994.2. Seizure and Confiscation of Goods:The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the confiscation of 11,136 bottles of packaged drinking water valued at Rs. 91,872, along with the demand for duty, interest, and penalties for different periods. The imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was also confirmed based on the actual clearance shown by the party and entries in the seized BST register.3. Ownership and Genuineness of Seized Register:The Commissioner (Appeals) observed discrepancies regarding the ownership of the seized register. The party claimed no knowledge of the entries in the register, stating it was maintained by a loading person. The Commissioner found force in the party's statement, questioning the genuineness of the register and the entries therein, especially those related to brands not manufactured by the party. The Commissioner relied on established case laws to support the party's claim regarding the doubtful nature of the register.4. Applicability of SSI Exemption and Confiscation of Goods:The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the party, being eligible for the SSI exemption, was not required to take registration in the relevant financial years. Therefore, the finished goods found in the premises were deemed not liable for confiscation. The Commissioner allowed the party's appeal, concluding that since the demand was not sustainable, interest and penalties were also not justified.5. Sufficiency of Evidence for Clandestine Activities:The Appellate Tribunal emphasized the requirement for sufficient and positive evidence to establish allegations of clandestine activities. In this case, the Revenue failed to provide further evidence to support the clandestine removal allegations against the party. As such, the Appellate Authority rightly set aside the demand, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence.In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the disputed clandestine removal allegations, ownership of the seized register, applicability of SSI exemption, and sufficiency of evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal both found in favor of the party, rejecting the Revenue's appeal based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine activities.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found