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>Section 11D Central Excise Act upheld for excess duty recovery despite petitioner's CENVAT credit entitlement</h1> <h3>Alpha Helical Pumps Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its Director Mr. Mohammed Saheer Sirajuddein Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore</h3> Alpha Helical Pumps Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its Director Mr. Mohammed Saheer Sirajuddein Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe judgment primarily revolves around the following legal issues:Whether the invocation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by the Department was within jurisdiction.Whether the petitioner was correctly assessed for the excise duty liability and the appropriateness of the penalty imposed.Whether the petitioner could utilize CENVAT credit to settle the outstanding tax liability.Whether the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order was procedurally appropriate under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Jurisdiction under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 11D(1) of the Central Excise Act mandates that any person liable to pay duty who collects an amount in excess of the duty assessed must pay it to the Central Government. Section 11D(2) provides the machinery for recovery of such amounts.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court interpreted Section 11D as applicable because the petitioner admitted to the tax liability by filing Form SVLDRS-1, thus acknowledging the collection of duty.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner filed a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy and Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, admitting a tax liability of Rs. 36,40,941/-.Application of law to facts: The court found that the conditions under Section 11D(1) were satisfied, justifying the invocation of Section 11D(2).Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the invocation of Section 11D was without jurisdiction, suggesting alternative provisions under Section 11A. The court rejected this, emphasizing the petitioner's admission of liability.Conclusions: The jurisdictional challenge was rejected, affirming the applicability of Section 11D.Issue 2: Assessment of Excise Duty and Imposition of PenaltyRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Central Excise Act and corresponding rules govern the assessment and collection of excise duty, including penalties for non-compliance.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted the petitioner's partial payment and the balance due, highlighting the need for reassessment of penalties.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner paid Rs. 24,73,472/- but had a remaining liability of Rs. 11,67,469/-.Application of law to facts: The court directed a fresh assessment regarding penalties, considering the petitioner's partial compliance.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner contended against the penalty, while the respondent upheld its imposition. The court found merit in revisiting the penalty.Conclusions: The court allowed for reconsideration of the penalty imposed.Issue 3: Utilization of CENVAT CreditRelevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, allows for the utilization of credit for duty payments.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged the possibility of using CENVAT credit, provided the petitioner could substantiate the claim with appropriate documentation.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner attempted to settle the liability using CENVAT credit, which was not initially accepted.Application of law to facts: The court directed the respondent to assess the validity of the CENVAT credit claim.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued for credit utilization, while the respondent required evidence of eligible inputs/services.Conclusions: The court allowed for potential reduction of liability through CENVAT credit upon verification.Issue 4: Procedural Appropriateness of the Writ PetitionRelevant legal framework and precedents: Article 226 of the Constitution of India permits writ petitions for jurisdictional challenges.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged the petitioner's choice to file a writ petition but noted the availability of appellate remedies under the Central Excise Act.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner bypassed the appellate mechanism, opting for direct judicial intervention.Application of law to facts: The court recognized the writ petition's validity for jurisdictional issues but emphasized the usual appellate process.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner justified the writ petition on jurisdictional grounds, while the respondent highlighted procedural norms.Conclusions: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing a fresh order from the respondent.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'Section 11D(1) makes it clear that every person who is liable to pay tax under the Act or rules made thereunder and has collected the amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under the Act or the rules made thereunder from the buyer of such goods shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government.'Core principles established: The court reaffirmed the applicability of Section 11D for recovery of excess duty collected and the procedural propriety of using writ jurisdiction for jurisdictional challenges.Final determinations on each issue: The court upheld the jurisdiction under Section 11D, allowed for reassessment of penalties, recognized potential CENVAT credit utilization, and directed a fresh order within three months.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found