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

        1993 (8) TMI 193 - 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

        Excise exemption fails without proper accountal; unreliable records and clandestine removal sustained duty, penalty, and extended limitation. Excise exemption was denied where the claimant failed to maintain reliable contemporaneous records and could not prove actual use of non-duty-paid goods ...
                      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.

                          Excise exemption fails without proper accountal; unreliable records and clandestine removal sustained duty, penalty, and extended limitation.

                          Excise exemption was denied where the claimant failed to maintain reliable contemporaneous records and could not prove actual use of non-duty-paid goods for the intended purpose. The Calcutta Collectorate's jurisdiction was upheld because the goods were received, accounted for, and cleared through the recipient factory within that jurisdiction. Incomplete D-3 declarations, stock discrepancies, and inconsistent records justified an inference of clandestine removal, shifting the burden back to the claimant and defeating the exemption claim. On those findings, the extended limitation period applied, so the duty demand was not time-barred. The demand and penalty were therefore sustained.




                          Issues: (i) whether the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I had jurisdiction to demand duty on goods transferred from the appellant's Bombay factories to its Calcutta factory; (ii) whether the appellant had properly accounted for the non-duty-paid goods and whether clandestine removal was established; (iii) whether the duty demand was barred by limitation; and (iv) whether the duty demand and penalty were liable to be set aside.

                          Issue (i): Whether the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I had jurisdiction to demand duty on goods transferred from the appellant's Bombay factories to its Calcutta factory.

                          Analysis: The exemption was availed in respect of goods received and accounted for in the Calcutta factory, and the Calcutta Collectorate had exercised control over their receipt, storage, accountal, and clearance. The appellant had maintained records and paid duty through the Calcutta factory, and the verification and proceedings were conducted in relation to the recipient unit within that jurisdiction.

                          Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the demand by the Calcutta Collectorate was upheld.

                          Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had properly accounted for the non-duty-paid goods and whether clandestine removal was established.

                          Analysis: The statutory and trade notice-based records were found to be incomplete, inconsistent, and in several respects not contemporaneous. D-3 declarations were not filed in the relevant periods, stock records were not properly maintained, and the appellant failed to explain numerous discrepancies or produce reliable records to show that the goods were actually used in the manufacture of further excisable goods. In these circumstances, the burden on the claimant to establish exemption was not discharged, and clandestine removal was inferred from the surrounding facts and conduct.

                          Conclusion: The department successfully established clandestine removal and the appellant's challenge on accountal failed.

                          Issue (iii): Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation.

                          Analysis: Since the non-duty-paid goods were held to have been clandestinely removed and the appellant had not shown due accountal or actual use for the intended purpose, the extended period was attracted. The plea that the demand was beyond the normal period was therefore not available on the facts found.

                          Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred.

                          Issue (iv): Whether the duty demand and penalty were liable to be set aside.

                          Analysis: Once the accountal failure, suppression, and clandestine removal were established, the levy of duty and imposition of penalty followed under the governing excise provisions. No ground was made out to interfere with the quantified demand or the penalty imposed.

                          Conclusion: The demand and penalty were sustained.

                          Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, and the adjudication confirming duty and penalty stood affirmed.

                          Ratio Decidendi: A claimant to excise exemption must strictly prove proper accountal and actual use of the exempted goods for the intended purpose; where statutory records are unreliable and the surrounding circumstances establish clandestine removal, duty demand, penalty, and the extended limitation period are sustainable.


                          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