Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 :
        Central Excise

        2019 (11) TMI 1047 - AT - Central Excise

        📋
        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

        Tribunal remands case for fresh determination due to errors in assessing CENVAT credit eligibility. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the original authority for a fresh determination. The impugned order lacked proper appreciation of facts and the ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                            Tribunal remands case for fresh determination due to errors in assessing CENVAT credit eligibility.

                            The Tribunal remanded the case back to the original authority for a fresh determination. The impugned order lacked proper appreciation of facts and the return of goods by the appellant. The original authority was tasked with assessing the appellant's eligibility for the claimed CENVAT credit under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and determining any duty shortfall for February 2016 after considering the eligible credit. The remand aimed to ensure a fair decision based on a thorough evaluation of the facts and compliance with legal provisions.




                            Issues:
                            1. Appeal against rejection of appellant's appeal by Commissioner (A) regarding duty payable and credit utilization.
                            2. Proper appreciation of facts and law by the Commissioner (A).
                            3. Eligibility of appellant for CENVAT credit under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
                            4. Consideration of goods return and credit adjustment by the appellant.
                            5. Remand of the case for a fresh determination by the original authority.

                            Analysis:
                            1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (A) concerning duty payable and credit utilization. The appellant, a manufacturer of PCB assemblies, declared duty payable as &8377; 17,09,145/- in their ER-1 returns for February 2015. However, they paid only &8377; 6,827/- in the credit utilized column, claiming adjustment for certain returned goods without furnishing documents. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of &8377; 17,02,318/- along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

                            2. The consultant for the appellant argued that the impugned order lacked sustainability in law as it failed to appreciate the facts and law properly. He contended that the Commissioner (A) misunderstood the case and did not address the real issue. The appellant had detailed the chronological facts involving the export and return of PCB assemblies, adjustments made, and utilization of CENVAT credit. The consultant argued that there was no short payment of duty for February 2016, attributing any lapses to procedural errors that should not deny substantive benefits.

                            3. The consultant cited relevant legal precedents to support the appellant's position, emphasizing that the appellant had fulfilled the requirements of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He argued that the appellant was entitled to the CENVAT credit claimed and had correctly adjusted the duty payment against the demand for February, paying the differential amount of &8377; 6,829/- as per their ER1 returns. The consultant requested a remand to the original authority for a thorough verification of records and a fresh decision.

                            4. The Assistant Commissioner acknowledged the mixing of facts by the Commissioner (A) and agreed that the real issue had not been addressed. She expressed willingness for the matter to be remanded to the original authority for a new decision. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the impugned order lacked proper appreciation of facts and the return of goods by the appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the original authority to determine the appellant's eligibility for the claimed CENVAT credit under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and to assess any duty shortfall for February 2016 after considering the eligible credit.

                            5. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the original authority for a fresh determination was based on the need for a proper evaluation of the facts and compliance with the relevant legal provisions. The remand aimed to ensure a fair and just decision regarding the appellant's entitlement to the claimed CENVAT credit and any duty liabilities for the specified period. The case was remanded with specific directions for the original authority to conduct a detailed examination and issue a de novo order in light of the observations made by the Tribunal.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found