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

        Copper wire manufacturer wins appeal as excise duty demand based on uncross-examined statements violates Section 9D natural justice principles

        Shivani Metal, Bhupender G Patel, Pankaj Aggarwal, Aashish Gupta Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. -Vapi

        Shivani Metal, Bhupender G Patel, Pankaj Aggarwal, Aashish Gupta Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. -Vapi - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Allegation of clandestine clearance of finished goods without payment of Central Excise Duty.
        2. Demand of Central Excise Duty based on statements without cross-examination.
        3. Retracted statements and their admissibility.
        4. Jurisdictional issues regarding the demand against M/s. Somain Enterprises.
        5. Demand of Central Excise Duty on goods found short during the search.
        6. Imposition of penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Allegation of Clandestine Clearance of Finished Goods:

        The primary issue revolves around the allegation that the Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Copper Wire and bare Copper wire, cleared their finished products clandestinely without paying Central Excise Duty. The investigation revealed that the Appellant allegedly cleared goods worth Rs. 1,46,85,771/- without payment of duty. During a search, a shortage of finished goods amounting to 2305.430 Kgs was found, leading to an additional duty liability of Rs. 60,789/-. The demand was confirmed by the Commissioner along with interest, penalty, and fine.

        2. Demand Based on Statements Without Cross-Examination:

        The Appellant contended that the demand was based on statements from transporters and buyers, but cross-examination of these individuals was not allowed, violating principles of natural justice. The Commissioner provided the opportunity for cross-examination of only three transporters, who did not appear on the scheduled dates. The Tribunal emphasized that without cross-examination, the statements could not be relied upon as admissible evidence under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

        3. Retracted Statements and Their Admissibility:

        The Appellant argued that the statements of key individuals, including the proprietor and Power of Attorney Holder, were retracted shortly after being made. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority failed to address these retractions adequately. The burden of proving that the confessions were voluntary lies with the department, and the Tribunal found that the department did not meet this burden. Consequently, the retracted statements were not considered reliable evidence.

        4. Jurisdictional Issues Regarding Demand Against M/s. Somain Enterprises:

        The Appellant also argued that the demand against M/s. Shivani Metals was based on documents pertaining to M/s. Somain Enterprises, over which the Commissioner, Vapi, did not have jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary focus was on the admissibility of evidence and the principles of natural justice.

        5. Demand on Goods Found Short During Search:

        Regarding the duty demand of Rs. 60,789/- for goods found short during the search, the Tribunal found that the admission of shortage by the staff did not conclusively establish clandestine removal. There was no corroborative evidence to support the charge, and the Tribunal held that such serious allegations must be proven beyond doubt.

        6. Imposition of Penalties Under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:

        Given that the primary demand was not sustainable, the penalties imposed under Rule 26 on co-appellants were also deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties could not be imposed when the foundational demand itself was not established.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon by the department. The Tribunal also highlighted the necessity of corroborative evidence to support serious allegations of clandestine removal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found