Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The case pertains to the clandestine removal of fireworks, denial of SSI exemption, and clubbing of clearances by the department. The key points are: The allegation that the partnership firm continued after the father's death is erroneous, as there is no evidence of the sons agreeing to constitute a new partnership. Both sons independently manufactured and sold fireworks from separate sheds, entitling them to SSI exemption. The department's reliance on 711 seized invoices is questionable, as the order does not establish their admissibility or address the lack of evidence for raw material purchases. The use of the 'Parrot' brand name, previously owned by the defunct Premier Fireworks, cannot be grounds for denying SSI exemption. The confiscation of goods, duty demand, and penalties cannot be sustained, except for the duty demand of Rs.5,828 and equal penalty confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2002, which attained finality due to the appellant's failure to file an appeal. The impugned order is set aside, and the Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2002 and 26.03.2002 are restored, with the appeals partly allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
