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>Court grants abatement for non-production days, rules in favor of respondent</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Versus M/s Trimurti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Versus M/s Trimurti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 257 (All.) Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008.2. Duty calculation for manufacturing Gutkha of different MRP during the month of November 2012.3. Compliance with the statutory period for tax payment as per the Supreme Court ruling.4. Interpretation of statutory provisions for tax payment methodology.5. Applicability of the Delhi High Court judgment in a similar case.6. Confirmation of demand and recovery of short-paid duty along with interest and penalties.7. Procedure for claiming abatement of duty for non-working days under Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules, 2008.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the PMPM Rules, 2008:The court examined whether the CESTAT erred in not taking cognizance of Rule 7 and Rule 9, which outline the duty calculation and payment procedures. Rule 7 specifies that duty is calculated based on the number of operating packing machines, while Rule 9 details the manner of duty payment and interest. The court emphasized that these rules must be adhered to for accurate duty computation and timely payment.2. Duty Calculation for Manufacturing Gutkha of Different MRP During November 2012:The respondent operated machines for Gutkha of MRP Rs. 1.00 and Rs. 2.00. The court noted that for the new MRP of Rs. 1.00, duty was to be calculated pro-rata for the operational days, while for the existing MRP of Rs. 2.00, full monthly duty was applicable. The respondent paid only Rs. 1,17,60,000/- instead of the required Rs. 2,25,60,000/-, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. 1,08,00,000/-.3. Compliance with the Statutory Period for Tax Payment:Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in M/s Madhumilan Syntax Ltd vs Union of India, the court reiterated that tax payments must be made within the stipulated period to avoid rendering the provision redundant.4. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions for Tax Payment Methodology:The court discussed the Supreme Court's interpretation in State of Jharkhand vs. Ambey Cement, emphasizing that statutory requirements must be followed precisely as prescribed.5. Applicability of the Delhi High Court Judgment:The court observed that the judgment in CCE vs. Shakti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. relied upon by the CESTAT was not identical to the present case, thereby questioning its applicability.6. Confirmation of Demand and Recovery of Short-Paid Duty:The court examined whether the demand and recovery of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- along with interest and penalties should be upheld. The Department argued that the respondent was liable for full duty on machines producing Gutkha of MRP Rs. 2.00, while the respondent claimed abatement for non-production days.7. Procedure for Claiming Abatement of Duty for Non-Working Days:The respondent claimed abatement for non-working days, arguing that they complied with Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules, 2008 by informing the Department about production stoppage and resumption. The court referred to the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Commissioner vs. Thakkar Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., which allowed abatement without first depositing the duty, and noted that the Department had accepted this judgment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the respondent complied with statutory requirements and was entitled to abatement for non-production days. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the questions of law were answered in favor of the respondent and against the revenue.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found