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 rules for Government entity in Customs case, finding violation but time-barred for penalties</h1> <h3>M/s Bharat Immunologicals & Biological Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-II</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a Government entity, in a case involving the interpretation of Customs Rules and compliance with an ... Violation of import conditions - actual user condition - Benefit of N/N. 21 of 2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, Serial No.83 of the said Notification - Government of India entity engaged in the manufacture of ‘Polio Drops’ - import of bulk polio vaccine as prepared by World Health Organization - denial of benefit on the ground that appellant did not use the imported bulk drugs for the intended purpose of manufacture of Polio Drops in their factory - time limitation. HELD THAT:- The Notification grants exemption to the Bulk Drugs subject to the conditions that the procedure as laid down in 1996 Rules is followed by the appellant. The said Rules are detailed Rules requiring importer to follow a detailed elaborate prescribed procedure. As already noticed, the said Rules provided concessional rate of duty subject to the conditions that the importer would use the goods in his own factory for further manufacture of the final product - Admittedly in the present case the imported Bulk Drugs has not been utilized by the appellant in his own factory for further manufacture of Polio Drop. Instead the Bulk Drugs stands sold by them to another private party who have though used the same for intended purposes for manufacture of Polio Drops only and further supplied them to the Ministry of Health. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The imports took place during the period April to October, 2007 and the sale of the imported goods was during the financial year 2007-08. In terms of the Rules in question the importer is required to maintain the detailed records of the use of the imported goods, which appellant had been undisputedly maintaining By considering the date of sale of bulk drugs as the relevant date, the proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 27 March, 2015 are even beyond the period of 5 years, as provided in Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - also the appellant is a Government enterprise and according to the well settled law, there cannot be any mala fide intention on the part of the Government to evade any duty - the demand is hopelessly barred by the limitation and is in fact even beyond maximum period prescribed under the law. Demand is set aside on the point of time bar - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Interpretation of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.2. Compliance with conditions of Exemption Notification No.21 of 2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002.3. Allegation of not using imported bulk drugs for intended purpose.4. Time bar for initiating proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.Interpretation of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996:The appellant, a Government entity, imported bulk polio vaccines under exemption as per Notification No.21 of 2002-Cus. The Customs Rules require the importer to follow a detailed procedure, including obtaining a certificate and maintaining accounts of imported goods. The Rules mandate using the goods in the importer's factory for further manufacture of the final product. In this case, the appellant sold a part of the imported bulk drugs to another party for manufacturing Polio Drops, not utilizing them in their factory. The Tribunal noted the detailed procedure laid down in the Rules and the non-compliance by the appellant.Compliance with conditions of Exemption Notification:The Revenue alleged that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions of the Customs Rules, leading to the initiation of proceedings against them. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, interest, and penalty, along with confiscation of the unsold bulk drugs. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's failure to use the imported bulk drugs for manufacturing Polio Drops in their factory violated the conditions of the Notification, warranting the demand and penalties imposed.Allegation of not using imported bulk drugs for intended purpose:The appellant imported bulk drugs for manufacturing Polio Drops but sold a portion due to lower orders from the Health Department. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions of selling the bulk drugs to another party for manufacturing Polio Drops did not align with the intended purpose of the scheme, leading to the violation of the Customs Rules and Notification conditions.Time bar for initiating proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962:The proceedings against the appellant were initiated through a show cause notice in 2015 for imports made in 2007. The Tribunal noted that the demand was time-barred as per Section 28 of the Customs Act, which sets a limitation period of 5 years. Considering the sale of goods in 2007-08, the Tribunal found the demand beyond the prescribed period, especially for a Government enterprise where no mala fide intention to evade duty was established. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, penalty, and redemption fine, ruling in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around interpreting the Customs Rules, assessing compliance with the Exemption Notification, addressing the allegation of not using imported bulk drugs for the intended purpose, and determining the time bar for initiating proceedings under the Customs Act. The decision favored the appellant, setting aside the demand based on the time bar and lack of mala fide intention, ultimately allowing the appeal against the duty, interest, penalty, and redemption fine.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found