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>Appeal allowed, case remanded for demand quantification. Tribunal validates Show Cause Notice, rejects time-bar argument.</h1> <h3>Thapar Ispat Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventative), Amritsar</h3> Thapar Ispat Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventative), Amritsar - 2021 (375) E.L.T. A15 (Tri. - Chan.) Issues Involved:1. Whether SCN is ab initio untenable for acknowledging the import of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) instead of re-rollable scrap.2. Whether the demand is time-barred due to the Customs' knowledge of the relevant records.3. Whether late submission of the end-use certificate is acceptable.4. Whether the requirement of a bond is redundant when the end-use certificate confirms compliance.5. Whether CVD should be demanded considering revenue neutrality.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. SCN Ab Initio Untenable:The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was ab initio untenable as it acknowledged that the license permitted only the import of re-rollable scrap, but the goods imported were HMS scrap. The Tribunal found that the SCN was not beyond its scope as the adjudicating authority was directed to consider if the appellant was entitled to any other notification benefits at the time of importation. Therefore, the argument that the proceedings were beyond the scope of the SCN was not sustainable.2. Demand Time-Barred:The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred since all relevant records, including the license, were produced before Customs, who erred in assessing the import under Notification No. 203/92. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the bond executed under Notification No. 203/92-Cus required the appellant to fulfill its conditions, and since these conditions were not met, the bond was still in force. Hence, the demand was not time-barred.3. Late Submission of End-Use Certificate:The appellant claimed that the late submission of the end-use certificate should be acceptable based on previous CESTAT judgments. The Tribunal noted that the substantial condition of Notification No. 83/90-Cus was the use of imported goods in the manufacture of ingots cleared on payment of duty. The end-use certificate, though submitted late, was considered a procedural lapse, and the appellant was deemed to have complied with the substantial conditions of the notification. Therefore, the benefit of the notification could not be denied based on procedural lapses.4. Requirement of Bond:The appellant argued that the bond executed under Notification No. 203/92-Cus should suffice for Notification No. 83/90-Cus, as the end-use certificate confirmed compliance. The Tribunal agreed, referencing the case of Meltron Semi Conductors Limited, where it was held that the absence of a bond should not prevent the claim if the end-use certificate was satisfactory. Thus, the bond requirement was considered redundant.5. CVD and Revenue Neutrality:The appellant argued that CVD should not be demanded as it would be adjustable against admissible Modvat credit, maintaining revenue neutrality. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant was entitled to Modvat credit on the CVD paid, making the situation revenue-neutral. Consequently, the demand for CVD was set aside.Separate Judgments:The Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal, granting the benefit of Notification No. 83/90-Cus and recognizing revenue neutrality. The Member (Technical) disagreed, emphasizing strict compliance with the notification's conditions and dismissing the appeal. The difference in opinion led to a reference to the President for resolution by a third Member.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the demand, if any, in terms of the above directions. The issues of exemption under Notification No. 83/90-Cus and revenue neutrality were central to the judgment, with differing opinions from the judicial and technical members necessitating further review.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found