Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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

        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

        High Court upholds excise duty payment & goods seizure, rejecting bias claims & additional grounds.

        SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN PRIVATE LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER

        SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN PRIVATE LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 501 (All.) Issues:
        1. Whether excise duty was payable on 'Dant Manjan Lal' manufactured by the petitioner.
        2. Validity of the order dated 4th July, 1986, passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise.
        3. Legality of the requirement for executing a bond and furnishing security for the release of seized goods.
        4. Allegation of bias against the department leading to the seizure of goods on 17th February, 1986.
        5. Permission to add a ground challenging the seizure of goods on 17th February, 1986.

        Analysis:

        Issue 1:
        The petitioner manufactured 'Dant Manjan Lal,' and a question arose regarding the payment of excise duty. An initial order by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise deemed excise duty payable. Subsequently, an appeal was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the adjudication dated 19th February, 1986, for lack of a hearing opportunity. The High Court directed a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner, which was done on 4th July, 1986.

        Issue 2:
        The petitioner chose not to press for quashing the order dated 4th July, 1986, opting for an appeal instead. The Assistant Collector's decision to require a bond and cash security for the release of seized goods was based on Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, granting such authority. The Court found no jurisdictional error in this requirement and upheld the Assistant Collector's actions.

        Issue 3:
        The petitioner argued against the requirement for executing a bond and providing security, claiming lack of jurisdiction by the Assistant Collector. However, the Court upheld the legality of this requirement under Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as authorized by law.

        Issue 4:
        Allegations of bias against the department were made, suggesting harassment of the petitioner. The Court found no specific allegations of personal bias against any officer and dismissed the inference of bias based on the department's conduct. The petition did not seek to quash the actual seizure of goods, focusing instead on the bond and security requirement, which was found to be within the Assistant Collector's authority.

        Issue 5:
        A request was made to add a ground challenging the seizure of goods on 17th February, 1986. The Court rejected this request, stating that without necessary averments and a prayer for quashing the seizure, adding such a ground would serve no purpose. Grounds in a writ petition must support specific reliefs, which was not the case here.

        In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The Court upheld the legality of the Assistant Collector's actions regarding the excise duty, bond requirement, and seizure of goods, based on the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found