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

        <h1>Appeals partially allowed in Central Excise Duty case with penalties reduced and confiscation order set aside.</h1> <h3>M/s. Ultramix Computer Support System Pvt. Ltd., Jayant Shirwadkar and Shrikant Shirwadkar Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Pune-I</h3> M/s. Ultramix Computer Support System Pvt. Ltd., Jayant Shirwadkar and Shrikant Shirwadkar Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE, Pune-I - TMI Issues Involved:1. Demand of Central Excise Duty.2. Clubbing of clearances.3. Imposition of penalties.4. Confiscation of property.5. Non-issuance of Show Cause Notice to alleged dummy units.6. Classification of goods.7. Applicability of extended period of limitation.8. Validity of penalties under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A.Detailed Analysis:1. Demand of Central Excise Duty:The Commissioner confirmed and demanded Central Excise Duty of Rs. 18,00,000/- on clearances made by M/s Shrikant Refrigeration Company and M/s Excel Technology, ordering recovery from M/s Ultramatix Computer Support Systems Pvt. Ltd. under Sec.11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand of Rs. 18,44,400/- was not confirmed.2. Clubbing of Clearances:The Commissioner concluded that M/s Shrikant Refrigeration Co. (SRC) and M/s Excel Technology (ET) were dummy units floated by the assessee to avail inadmissible exemptions under Notification No. 75/87. It was determined that all three units had common machinery, labor force, and manufacturing premises. Consequently, clearances of these units were clubbed together, and a demand of Rs. 19,35,000/- was proposed.3. Imposition of Penalties:Penalties were imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules on M/s Ultramatix Computer Support System Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 2,00,000/-), Rule 209A on Shri Shrikant Shirwadkar (Rs. 1,00,000/-), and Shri Jayant Shirwadkar (Rs. 50,000/-). The penalties were based on the findings that the dummy units were created to evade duty and that there was misclassification of goods.4. Confiscation of Property:The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery, and materials belonging to M/s Ultramatix Computer Support System Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. However, an option of redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation was provided.5. Non-issuance of Show Cause Notice to Alleged Dummy Units:The appellants argued that no Show Cause Notice was issued to SRC and ET, which vitiated the entire proceeding. However, the tribunal held that issuance of notice to the partners of these firms sufficed, as per the Partnership Act, 1932, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Madhu @ C.V. Maadhesh case.6. Classification of Goods:The Commissioner held that the goods claimed as parts of air conditioners were actually complete air conditioners cleared in CKD/SKD condition. The classification lists for SRC and ET were finalized in 2011, denying the benefit of Notification No. 75/87. The tribunal upheld this classification based on Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.7. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:The extended period of limitation was invoked on the grounds of suppression of facts. The tribunal upheld this, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Box & Carton India Pvt. Ltd. case, which allowed for the extended period in cases of suppression.8. Validity of Penalties under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A:The tribunal noted that Rule 173Q(2) was omitted w.e.f. 12/5/2000, and any order passed thereafter invoking this rule for confiscation was not sustainable, following the Supreme Court's decision in Punjab National Bank. However, penalties under Rule 173Q(1) and Rule 209A were upheld, as these rules continued under the Central Excise Rules, 2001, and 2002.Conclusion:The appeals were partially allowed. The penalty on M/s Ultramatix under Rule 173Q(1) was reduced to Rs. 1,80,000/-, and the confiscation order under Rule 173Q(2) was set aside. The penalty on Shri Jayant Shirwadkar was set aside, and the penalty on Shri Shrikant Shirwadkar under Rule 209A was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found