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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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

        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>Tribunal overturns duty demand on alleged illicit vegetable products & soap due to lack of evidence</h1> <h3>ASHWIN VANASPATI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order confirming the demand for duty on alleged illicitly manufactured vegetable products and soap, along with the ... Demand - Clandestine removal of goods not established Issues Involved:1. Alleged illicit manufacture and removal of vegetable products and soap.2. Validity of evidence based on private register and statements.3. Time-bar under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.4. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Summary:1. Alleged illicit manufacture and removal of vegetable products and soap:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, confirming the demand of Rs. 3,39,463.35 Ps. on 32636 tins of 'Vegetable Products' and Rs. 16,588.70 Ps. on 3338 cases of 'Soap' alleged to have been illicitly manufactured and removed without payment of duty from July 1983 to January 1984. The Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs u/r 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Validity of evidence based on private register and statements:The department's case was based on a private register found during a preventive check, which allegedly showed unaccounted production and removal of goods. Statements from various employees and directors of the company were recorded. The assessee argued that the private register contained records of unfinished goods used for labor control and statistical purposes, and that entries in the R.G. 1 register were made only after the goods were fully processed and tested. The Collector rejected these contentions, concluding that the entries in the private register indicated finished goods and clandestine removal.3. Time-bar under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:The assessee contended that the demand was time-barred as the clearances of soap manufactured without the aid of power were made at NIL rate of duty after filing declarations with the Range Officer. The Collector rejected this contention, holding that the assessee had suppressed facts with intent to evade duty.4. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs u/r 173Q(1) based on the alleged clandestine removal of goods.Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal found that the private register was not a reliable piece of evidence for proving clandestine removal, as it was maintained for production purposes and not for recording finished goods. The statements of the employees and directors did not conclusively prove clandestine removal. The Tribunal also noted that the Collector had not properly scrutinized the private register or the statements, and had not provided sufficient corroborative evidence. The Tribunal relied on previous rulings that unauthenticated entries in a private register without corroborative evidence cannot establish clandestine removal. The demand for duty on soap manufactured without the aid of power was also found unsustainable, as it was within the department's knowledge.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove clandestine removal and that the demand for duty on soap was unsustainable.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found