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

        Refund claims recovery set aside due to natural justice violations and improper reliance on statements without Section 9D compliance

        M/s Amarnath Industries, Shri Vinay Agarwal, Partner and Shri Manish Jain Versus Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi – I

        M/s Amarnath Industries, Shri Vinay Agarwal, Partner and Shri Manish Jain Versus Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi – I - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Denial of refund and recovery of excise duty invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
        2. Imposition of penalties on partners under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.
        3. Allegation of non-manufacturing activities and manipulation of records.
        4. Validity of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant.
        5. Denial of cross-examination and reliance on statements without compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act.
        6. Invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of interest and penalties.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Denial of Refund and Recovery of Excise Duty:

        The appellant challenged the denial of a refund amounting to Rs. 10,14,57,998/- and the recovery of the same under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The order from the Commissioner invoked the extended period of limitation, alleging that the appellant did not engage in any manufacturing process as claimed. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to the refund since the duty paid was accepted by the department, and the refund orders were not challenged, thus attaining finality. The Tribunal relied on precedents such as 'Commissioner of C. Ex., Shillong vs. Jellalpore Tea Estate' to conclude that collateral proceedings could not be initiated under Section 11A when the department had not challenged the original refund orders.

        2. Imposition of Penalties on Partners:

        The penalties imposed on the partners under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules were also contested. The Tribunal found that the penalties could not be sustained as the basis for their imposition was flawed due to the improper reliance on inadmissible statements and lack of compliance with procedural requirements. Consequently, the penalties were set aside.

        3. Allegation of Non-Manufacturing Activities:

        The department alleged that the appellant did not have the capacity to manufacture the goods and manipulated records to claim exemptions. However, the Tribunal noted the presence of machinery and workers at the appellant's premises, supporting the claim of manufacturing activities. The Tribunal found that the department's case was based on assumptions and lacked substantive evidence, thereby favoring the appellant's position.

        4. Validity of CENVAT Credit:

        The appellant argued that the CENVAT credit availed was valid as the duty paid on inputs was accepted by the department. The Tribunal agreed, referencing cases like 'Nestle India Ltd.' and 'Ajinkya Enterprises,' which held that once duty is accepted, the credit cannot be denied even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal concluded that the credit was rightfully availed by the appellant.

        5. Denial of Cross-Examination and Reliance on Statements:

        The appellant contended that the denial of cross-examination and reliance on statements without adhering to Section 9D of the Central Excise Act vitiated the order. The Tribunal supported this view, citing decisions like 'Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd.' and 'Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd.,' which emphasized the necessity of following procedural requirements for statements to be admissible. The failure to adhere to these requirements led to the Tribunal setting aside the order.

        6. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation and Imposition of Interest and Penalties:

        The Tribunal found that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified, as the department failed to establish suppression or misrepresentation by the appellant. Additionally, the imposition of interest and penalties under Section 11AC was deemed inappropriate due to the procedural lapses and lack of evidence of wrongdoing by the appellant.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2010 concerning the three appellants, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs. The judgment underscored the necessity of adhering to procedural norms and the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through non-compliance, thereby favoring the appellants' claims for refunds and credit.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found