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

        Court upholds admission under Central Excise Act, penalties impact liability.

        M/s Bihar Foundry & Casting Ltd. through its Managing Director Sri Hari Krishna Budhia Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi Commissionerate, Ranchi

        M/s Bihar Foundry & Casting Ltd. through its Managing Director Sri Hari Krishna Budhia Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi Commissionerate, ... Issues Involved:

        1. Relevance of the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without complying with Section 9D.
        2. Whether the duty demand was contested by the appellant before the authorities.
        3. Whether the suo-moto deposit of differential duty liability can be said to be an admission of clandestine removal of goods.
        4. Effect of the finality of the penalty imposed on the Managing Director on the appellant.
        5. Basis of the impugned order: whether solely on the statement of the Managing Director or further material.
        6. Basis of passing the impugned order: whether on the entries made in the private diary of the Managing Director.

        Analysis:

        Issue 1: Relevance of the Statement under Section 14 without Complying with Section 9D

        The court held that the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is per se admissible in evidence and does not require the formal proof of examination-in-chief before the adjudicating authority. The statement is subject to scrutiny by the adjudicating authority in the light of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the voluntariness of the statement. The court emphasized that the person making the statement under Section 14 is already under a statutory obligation to state the truth and is liable to penal consequences for making false statements. Therefore, the statement recorded under Section 14 can be relied upon by the adjudicating authority without the need for re-examination under Section 9D(1)(b). The court distinguished between statements recorded under Section 14 and other statements, such as those recorded under Section 21, which would require compliance with Section 9D(1)(b).

        Issue 2: Contesting the Duty Demand

        The court found that the appellant did not contest the duty demand related to the clandestine removal of goods before the adjudicating authority. The appellant's defense was primarily focused on the calculation of the duty amount and the treatment of the sale price as cum-duty price. The court noted that the appellant admitted the clandestine removal of goods by stating that the invoices could not be issued due to inadvertence. The appellant's claim for a refund of excess payment further indicated that the duty liability was accepted.

        Issue 3: Suo-Moto Deposit as Admission of Clandestine Removal

        The court held that the suo-moto deposit of the differential duty before the issuance of the show-cause notice, coupled with the appellant's specific stand and conduct during the adjudication proceedings, amounted to an admission of clandestine removal of goods. The court noted that the appellant did not dispute the clandestine removal of goods but contested the calculation of the duty amount. The court also observed that the payment was not made under protest, and the appellant claimed a refund of only the excess amount, indicating acceptance of the duty liability.

        Issue 4: Effect of Finality of Penalty on Managing Director

        The court held that the finality of the penalty imposed on the Managing Director of the appellant company has a significant bearing on the appellant. The court noted that the penalty on the Managing Director was imposed under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, for his involvement in the clandestine removal of goods. The court emphasized that the foundational facts for imposing the penalty on the Managing Director and the appellant company were identical. The court concluded that the finality of the penalty on the Managing Director, who was responsible for the sales and purchases of the appellant company, directly impacts the appellant company's liability.

        Issue 5: Basis of the Impugned Order

        The court found that the impugned order was not based solely on the statement of the Managing Director recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court noted that there were further materials, including the private diary maintained by the Managing Director and the appellant's admission of clandestine removal of goods. The court observed that the appellant's defense focused on the calculation of the duty amount and the treatment of the sale price as cum-duty price, indicating acceptance of the duty liability.

        Issue 6: Basis of Passing the Impugned Order on Private Diary Entries

        The court held that the entries made in the private diary of the Managing Director, coupled with other materials on record, formed a valid basis for passing the impugned order against the appellant. The court noted that the private diary was maintained by the Managing Director, who was responsible for the sales and purchases of the appellant company. The court emphasized that the appellant did not dispute the clandestine removal of goods and claimed that the invoices could not be issued due to inadvertence.

        Conclusion:

        The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is admissible in evidence without the need for re-examination under Section 9D(1)(b). The court found that the appellant did not contest the duty demand related to the clandestine removal of goods and that the suo-moto deposit of the differential duty amounted to an admission of clandestine removal. The court also held that the finality of the penalty imposed on the Managing Director has a significant bearing on the appellant and that the impugned order was based on further materials, including the private diary entries and the appellant's admission of clandestine removal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found