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 dismisses writ appeal, directs objection filing by deadline, stresses exhausting remedies, cautions against premature challenge.

        MADURA COATS LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADURAI

        MADURA COATS LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADURAI - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 355 (Mad.) Issues Involved:
        1. Whether the process of cropping of grey fabrics amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
        2. Jurisdiction of the respondent to issue the show cause notice.
        3. Appropriateness of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the show cause notice.
        4. Requirement to exhaust alternative remedies before approaching the High Court.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Whether the process of cropping of grey fabrics amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
        The appellant argued that the process of cropping grey fabrics does not amount to manufacture as per the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited v. The Collector of Central Excise (1989 (40) E.L.T. 218). The appellant contended that the learned single Judge should have prohibited the respondents from proceeding further based on this settled issue.

        2. Jurisdiction of the respondent to issue the show cause notice:
        The respondent, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the learned single Judge was correct in directing the appellant to respond to the show cause notice. The respondent contended that the issue involved adjudication of disputed questions of fact, which should be addressed by the authorities concerned. The appellant, being a manufacturer with facilities for bleaching and dyeing, was alleged to have mis-declared cropped fabrics as unprocessed to avail exemption from duty. The respondent maintained that they had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice based on the materials gathered, and the appellant should present their case before the adjudicating authority.

        3. Appropriateness of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the show cause notice:
        The Court emphasized that rushing to the High Court under Article 226 without responding to the show cause notice is not appropriate. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (1997 (96) E.L.T. 209) held that the High Court should not interfere at the stage of show cause notice or assessment, as the assessee has adequate statutory remedies. The Court reiterated that the appellant should place all materials, including Supreme Court decisions, before the respondent and, if necessary, appeal against the respondent's decision.

        4. Requirement to exhaust alternative remedies before approaching the High Court:
        The Court highlighted that the appellant should have availed alternative remedies before approaching the High Court. The Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited (2005 (6) S.C. 298) and other cases has held that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions when alternative remedies are available unless there are compelling reasons. The Court noted that factual issues alleged against the appellant should be resolved by the authorities, and the High Court should not decide these issues based on affidavits.

        Conclusion:
        The Court dismissed the writ appeal, stating that the appellant should file their objections to the show cause notice with relevant materials by 21-1-2008, and the respondent should proceed further in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that the appellant must exhaust alternative remedies and present their case before the adjudicating authority rather than invoking Article 226 prematurely.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found