Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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

        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>Central Excise duty demand upheld, penalties imposed on parties, evidence supports clandestine removal. Tribunal decisions on penalties and duty.</h1> <h3>ADITYA STEEL INDUSTRIES Versus COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD</h3> ADITYA STEEL INDUSTRIES Versus COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 229 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Demand of duty and confiscation of goods and truck.2. Imposition of penalty on various appellants.3. Validity of statements and evidence presented.4. Clandestine removal of goods.Summary:1. Demand of Duty and Confiscation of Goods and Truck:The officers of the Central Excise intercepted a truck on 27-6-1993, leading to the discovery of discrepancies in the transportation of M.S. Ingots. The truck driver, Mohd. Ikram, admitted to using the same gate pass for multiple consignments. The lower authority demanded a duty of Rs. 20,260/- from Aditya Steel Industries, confiscated 10.090 MTs of M.S. Ingots with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and confiscated the truck with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 8,000/-. 2. Imposition of Penalty:Penalties were imposed as follows: Rs. 2,500/- on Aditya Steel Industries u/r 9(2), 52A, 173Q, and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; Rs. 2,000/- on Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills; and Rs. 1,000/- each on driver Mohd. Ikram, Lakhi Prasad, and R. Singh. The Tribunal upheld the penalties on Aditya Steel Industries, Mohd. Ikram, and Lakhi Prasad, but set aside the penalty on Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills, as penalties u/r 209A cannot be imposed on a partnership concern.3. Validity of Statements and Evidence Presented:The Tribunal found the statements of the driver and other individuals to be voluntary and corroborated by evidence. The driver's detailed account of the clandestine removal was supported by the statements of the factory manager and supervisor of Aditya Steel Industries. The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' claims of duress and inconsistencies in the statements.4. Clandestine Removal of Goods:The Tribunal concluded that there was clear evidence of the removal of 135 ingots twice using the same gate pass. However, the evidence for a third consignment was insufficient, and the benefit of doubt was given to the appellants. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties for the second consignment but did not demand duty for the alleged third consignment.Conclusion:The appeals of Lakhi Prasad, Raghuvir Singh, and Mohd. Ikram were dismissed. The appeal of Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills was allowed, and the appeal of Aditya Steel Industries was disposed of with modifications. The cross-objections were dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found