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>Court allows appeal, sets aside order, and quashes dated Order-in-Original. Adjudication order flawed on limitation; writ petition maintainable.</h1> <h3>M/s. EPC International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union Of India & Anr.</h3> M/s. EPC International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union Of India & Anr. - 2023 (384) E.L.T. 31 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the authority to issue the show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation.2. Classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff Act.3. Allegations of willful suppression and mis-statement by the appellants.4. Validity of the chemical examiner's report.5. Whether the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Authority to Issue the Show Cause Notice by Invoking the Extended Period of Limitation:The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the authority to issue the show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation. The court referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, which held that the alternate remedy is not a bar in cases where there is a violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of an act. The court noted that the department had accepted the classification of the product for over six years, and the monthly returns filed by the appellants were never questioned. The court held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no material to establish willful suppression or mis-statement by the appellants.2. Classification of the Product Under the Central Excise Tariff Act:The appellants contended that the product was correctly classified under tariff sub-heading 27090000 attracting NIL rate of duty. The court observed that the adjudicating authority was largely guided by the chemical examiner's report, which did not address the queries regarding the chemical constituents and classification of the samples. The court held that the classification dispute could not be appropriately adjudicated in a writ petition and that the department should have given the appellants an opportunity to demonstrate that the process adopted did not amount to manufacture.3. Allegations of Willful Suppression and Mis-statement by the Appellants:The court found that the allegations of willful suppression and mis-statement were vague and not supported by sufficient material. The court emphasized that mere usage of terms like 'willful suppression' and 'mis-statement' is not sufficient to hold an assessee guilty. The court concluded that there was no material on record to establish these allegations, and thus, invoking the extended period of limitation was bad in law.4. Validity of the Chemical Examiner's Report:The court noted that the chemical examiner's report was submitted after a delay of more than seven months, which could affect the natural properties of the petro-product. The report did not answer the queries regarding the chemical constituents and classification of the samples. The court held that the report was of little avail and should be discarded.5. Whether the Process Undertaken by the Appellants Amounts to 'Manufacture' Under the Central Excise Act:The appellants argued that the process of distillation did not bring about a new product and thus did not amount to manufacture. The court observed that the adjudicating authority did not provide a clear basis for concluding that the process amounted to manufacture. The court held that the issue of whether the process amounts to manufacture is a technical question that requires a scientific approach and cannot be determined based on statements from the appellants' employees.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed in the writ petition, and quashed the Order-in-Original dated 29.11.2016. The court concluded that the adjudication order was flawed, particularly on the ground of limitation, and that the writ petition was maintainable as it involved a jurisdictional question.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found