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>Tribunal grants waiver and stay on duty recovery for appellants accused of vehicle duty evasion.</h1> <h3>MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI</h3> MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 597 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Allegation of clandestine removal of 1308 vehicles without payment of duty.2. Discrepancy in accounting and inventory records.3. Compliance with procedural requirements for vehicle clearance.4. Financial condition of the appellant and its impact on pre-deposit requirements.Detailed Analysis:1. Allegation of Clandestine Removal of 1308 Vehicles:The primary issue revolves around the allegation that the appellants cleared 1308 vehicles without payment of duty, resulting in a demand of Rs. 3,46,95,525.32. The appellants contended that the figures in the balance sheet included duty-paid vehicles in transit, stock-yards, or on display, and that recalculating based on their records would show no excess clearances. They submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate and detailed statements to support their claims. The Department, however, argued that the appellants admitted non-accounting of some vehicles and that the discrepancy in balance sheet figures indicated clandestine removal.2. Discrepancy in Accounting and Inventory Records:The Department's case was based on discrepancies between the number of vehicles shown in the balance sheet and those accounted for in the RG 1 Register and RT 12 returns. The appellants argued that the closing balance in the balance sheet included vehicles both within and outside the factory, and that the Department should only consider vehicles within the factory for determining clearances. They provided detailed charts and a Chartered Accountant's certificate to substantiate their position. The Department maintained that the appellants failed to maintain proper records and admitted lapses in accounting for some vehicles.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Vehicle Clearance:The Department highlighted procedural lapses, including the use of the same gate passes for clearing vehicles twice, and failure to follow prescribed procedures for damaged vehicles. Statements from company officials admitted these procedural violations. The appellants countered that these issues pertained to specific vehicles (251 and 70 vehicles) and not the 1308 vehicles in question. The Department argued that these procedural lapses indicated a broader pattern of non-compliance and clandestine removal.4. Financial Condition of the Appellant and Its Impact on Pre-Deposit Requirements:The Department argued that the appellants had a sound financial position with continuous profits and liquidity, justifying the demand for pre-deposit. The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit, contending that the demand was based on erroneous calculations and that they had already paid a significant portion of the duty demanded. The Tribunal considered the financial condition of the appellants and the prima facie strength of the Department's case in deciding on the pre-deposit requirement.Separate Judgments:The Vice President and Member (Judicial) delivered separate judgments. The Vice President rejected the stay application, emphasizing the Department's strong case and the appellants' financial capability. The Member (Judicial) disagreed, finding prima facie merit in the appellants' arguments and proposing waiver of pre-deposit. The matter was referred to a third Member (Technical), who concurred with the Member (Judicial), leading to the final order granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying recovery during the appeal.Final Order:In view of the majority opinion, the pre-deposit of the duty in question is waived, and its recovery is stayed during the pendency of the appeal.Dated: 16-8-1994

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found