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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Central Excise

        1990 (5) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

        📋
        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

        Tribunal rules in favor of appellants: wire netting scrap not dutiable under Central Excise Tariff The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that wire netting scrap is not dutiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 68. The demand for duty ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal rules in favor of appellants: wire netting scrap not dutiable under Central Excise Tariff

                            The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that wire netting scrap is not dutiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 68. The demand for duty and penalty imposed on the appellants for clearing the scrap without payment of duty was found unjustified. The Tribunal also confirmed that the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 33/81 for waste and scrap of copper. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders, allowing the appeals and granting the appellants refunds for the duty and penalty paid.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Classification and dutiability of wire netting scrap under Central Excise Tariff Item 68.
                            2. Validity of the demand for duty and imposition of penalty on wire netting scrap cleared without payment of duty.
                            3. Applicability of Notification No. 33/81 dated 1-3-1981 for exemption from duty on wire netting scrap.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Classification and Dutiability of Wire Netting Scrap:
                            The primary issue in both appeals was whether the wire netting scrap produced by the appellants is chargeable to duty under Central Excise Tariff Item 68. The appellants argued that the wire netting scrap is not an excisable product attracting duty, relying on several precedents including the decisions in Modi Rubber Limited v. Union of India and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Gayatri Glass Works. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that scrap is not assessable under Item 68 as it is a rejected product, not intentionally manufactured prime goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the wire netting scrap, arising in the course of manufacture, does not constitute a finished product with a new name, character, or use, and thus should not be classified under Item 68.

                            2. Validity of the Demand for Duty and Imposition of Penalty:
                            The second appeal addressed the demand for Central Excise duty of Rs. 37,234.95 and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellants for clearing wire netting scrap without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that the appellants had included wire netting scrap in their classification lists filed for successive years and had claimed exemption under Notification No. 33/81. The Tribunal noted that the department had initially approved the classification list, indicating that the goods were eligible for duty-free clearance. The Tribunal held that the demand for duty on clearances up to 31-3-1982 was not justified, as these were made pursuant to the approved classification list. For clearances after 1-4-1982, although the appellants had filed a revised classification list under protest, the Tribunal set aside the levy of duty based on its decision that the product does not attract classification under Item 68.

                            3. Applicability of Notification No. 33/81:
                            The appellants contended that they were entitled to exemption from duty under Notification No. 33/81, which exempts waste and scraps of copper falling under Item No. 26A. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the conditions stipulated in the Notification were satisfied, as the waste and scrap arose from copper on which appropriate duty had already been paid. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that the exemption was not applicable because the waste arose after the manufacture of the wire netting. The Tribunal concluded that the waste and scrap arose in the course of manufacturing the wire netting itself and thus qualified for the exemption.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal set aside both the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, holding that the wire netting scrap is not dutiable under Tariff Item 68 and that the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 33/81. The appellants were granted consequential benefits, including the refund of duty and penalty deposited by them.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found