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>Sealing machine manufacturer wins SSI exemption under N/N. 08/2003-CE as revenue fails to prove dummy unit allegations</h1> <h3>M/s. Sepack India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin Commissionerate</h3> M/s. Sepack India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin Commissionerate - TMI Issues Involved:1. Denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE due to alleged dummy units.2. Liability of confiscation and penalty on seized goods.3. Justification for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of CER 2002 on other appellants.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of SSI Exemption:The core issue was whether the decentralized mother units (DMUs) were dummy units created and controlled by Sepack India Pvt. Ltd. to claim SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE. The Revenue alleged that the DMUs were dummy units, effectively controlled by Sepack, and thus the clearances should be clubbed, denying the SSI exemption. The appellant argued that each DMU was independent, had its own infrastructure, and was managed separately.The Tribunal analyzed the principles of law on clubbing of clearances, referencing several judgments, including CCE, New Delhi Vs. Modi Alkalis & Chemicals Ltd. and CCE, Pune-II Vs. Ravi Batteries, which emphasized that financial and managerial control are key indicators of interdependence. The Tribunal found that Sepack's involvement in negotiating raw material prices and advising on cost reduction did not amount to pervasive financial control. It was noted that the DMUs were independently registered, managed their own finances, and there was no evidence of financial flow-back or shared profits between Sepack and the DMUs.The Tribunal concluded that the DMUs were not dummy units and were eligible for SSI exemption. The decision was supported by the fact that some DMUs existed before Sepack was incorporated, and the mutual benefits from cost reduction efforts were part of normal commercial practices, not indicative of control.2. Liability of Confiscation and Penalty on Seized Goods:The second issue was whether the goods seized at Sepack, Global Pack Industries, and Speed Pack were liable for confiscation and if penalties were justified. The Revenue argued that the goods were incomplete and became marketable only after further processes by Sepack, thus making Sepack the manufacturer.The Tribunal found that the sealing machines were complete and marketable when received by Sepack, and the additional processes like branding and packaging did not constitute manufacture. The Tribunal referenced the judgment in CCE Vs. Rafique Malik, which held that affixing a brand name and packaging do not amount to manufacture if the goods are already marketable.Since the Tribunal concluded that the goods were complete and marketable when received, the confiscation and penalties imposed on the seized goods were not justified.3. Justification for Imposition of Penalty under Rule 26 of CER 2002:The third issue was whether penalties imposed on the various proprietors under Rule 26 of CER 2002 were justified. The Revenue argued that the proprietors were involved in evasion of duty by being part of the dummy units.The Tribunal noted that since the DMUs were found to be independent and eligible for SSI exemption, the basis for imposing penalties under Rule 26 did not hold. The penalties were based on the premise that the DMUs were dummy units, which was not established. Therefore, the penalties imposed on the proprietors were set aside.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. It was concluded that the DMUs were independent units eligible for SSI exemption, the seized goods were not liable for confiscation, and the penalties imposed under Rule 26 were not justified.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found