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 ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - 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
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
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
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Dead Credits and Transitional Limits: CESTAT Larger Bench on Refund of Education and Krishi Kalyan C...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Pre-deposit Compliance in Appeals: Judicial Overreach by CESAT
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Excise Duty Valuation and Limitation Period Extension: A Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgmen...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reversal of CENVAT Credit: A Critical Analysis of a Recent Legal Dispute
    NotificationsCentral Excise
    Analyzing the Implications of Central Excise Duty Changes on Petroleum Products
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Demand based on Form-26AS information from the Income Tax Department, without pre-show cause notice ...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Interpretation of term "basic excise duty".
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Hand Trolley or Fork Lift"-Interpretation of Tariff (84.27 or 84.31)
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Pantoon with spuds"-Interpretation of Tariff (8905 or 8907)
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Rice and Spice"-Interpretation of Tariff ( 11.01 or 21.08)
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Soft Serve"-Interpretation of Tariff ( 21.05 or 04.04 or 2108.91)
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Povidone Iodine Cleansing Solution USP and Wokadine Surgical Scrub" -...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for " Slagwool and Rockwool"-Interpretation of Tariff ( 6807.10 or 6803)
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Scrabble"-Interpretation of Tariff ( 9403 or 9504)
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Aluminium Castings"-Interpretation of Tariff ( 3003.31 or 33.06)
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Aluminium Castings"-Interpretation of Tariff (84.09 or 84.32)
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for Addition of Perfume in Hair Oil Product-Interpretation of Tariff ( 330...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Classification (HSN Code) for "Chillers"-Interpretation of Tariff (84.18 or 84.19)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Transition of cess credits: abolished cess balances are dead credits, not eligible for GST transition or cash refunds.
    Unutilised Education Cess, Secondary & Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess balances whose utilisation was limited to the same cess and whose levies were abolished became dead CENVAT credits; they were not eligible for transition under the exhaustive list in Section 140 and its Explanations, and Section 142(3) only prescribes payment in cash where refund is otherwise due under existing law, not a new substantive right to refund or a means to evade pre GST limitation.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit requirement undermined by tribunal restoration without compliance, raising jurisdictional and laches concerns in excise appeals procedure scrutiny.
    The Tribunal's restoration and allowance of excise appeals without a prior pre-deposit requirement raises whether a lower tribunal may waive mandatory pre-deposit obligations and whether such action aligns with supervisory limits imposed by higher court directives and doctrines like functus officio and res judicata.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Excise duty valuation: inclusion of customer duty benefits affects assessable value; intent determines extended limitation applicability.
    Excise duty valuation focuses on whether benefits from transferred advance licences are includable in the transaction value for assessable value, assessed against statutory value principles and precedent. The extended limitation regime requires proof of deliberate evasion-fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression-and the Court distinguishes honest legal interpretation from intentional suppression, emphasising mens rea and conduct when applying the extended period to valuation disputes.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    CENVAT credit reversal: elective accounting options cannot be imposed on a taxpayer, limiting percentage-based recovery.
    Dispute concerns entitlement to reverse CENVAT credit when a manufacturer produces both dutiable and exempt goods without separate records. Rule 6(3) provides elective options for taxpayers not maintaining segregated accounts but authorities cannot impose those options on the assessee. Rule 14 and statutory recovery provisions allow recovery of wrongly availed credit, yet there is no statutory basis to mandate recovery by applying fixed percentages to the value of exempted goods; if the assessee has already reversed credit attributable to exempted production, additional percentage-based demands or penalties lack legal support.
    NotificationsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Special Additional Excise Duty reduction may lower government revenues and influence fuel pricing and consumption.
    Notification No. 03/2024 amends Notification No. 18/2022 by reducing the Special Additional Excise Duty on production of petroleum crude, directly altering the statutory excise rate and thereby affecting government excise revenue, oil company margins and pricing incentives, potential consumer fuel prices given other tax and market factors, and environmental consumption incentives.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Form 26AS reliance insufficient where no proper investigation; valuation rules and natural justice must govern service tax demands.
    Reliance on Form-26AS alone cannot sustain a service tax demand absent proper investigation and procedural consultation; valuation must follow the applicable valuation rules for works contract services with consideration of claimed abatements and any notification based relief, and invocation of the extended period of limitation requires factual basis beyond third party data or ex parte adjudication.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Interpretation of basic excise duty: exemptions do not extend to separately enacted cesses or ancillary excise levies.
    An exemption of basic excise duty must be given a strict, literal construction limited to that duty alone; it does not extend to duties or cesses-such as National Calamity Contingent Duty, education cesses, additional or auxiliary excise duties-that are imposed by different legislation or for different purposes.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of fork lift equipment: pallets are not parts and therefore fall under independent goods classification, not vehicle parts.
    Pallets used with fork lift trucks are not parts because the fork lift operates without them; the parts classification guidance does not apply to goods merely used with machinery, so the pallets must be classified as independent goods rather than as parts of the trucks.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Tariff classification: pantoon with spuds falls under specialized vessel heading, prompting remand over inadequate tribunal reasoning.
    The expression "pantoon with spuds" is to be classified under the tariff provision for specialized vessel units rather than the alternative heading relied on by the respondent. An appellate tribunal must issue a speaking order addressing the Commissioner's reasoning when disagreeing; it cannot allow an appeal on an issue not raised in reply to the show cause notice or not argued before the Commissioner, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Product classification: mixed rice with spices treated as rice under tariff, not a manufactured spice preparation.
    Classification turns on whether mixing raw rice with dehydrated vegetables and spices amounts to manufacture. If the essential characteristic of rice remains and the article continues to be a milling industry product, it must be classified under the milling-related tariff provision rather than as a prepared-food manufactured article.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Tariff classification: Soft Serve classified under prepared foodstuffs, not dairy or ice-cream headings, for excise purposes.
    The product Soft Serve is to be treated as a prepared foodstuff under Sub-Heading 21.05 rather than as a dairy product or an ice-cream/ice confection; its character and presentation align it with preparations for human consumption covered by the prepared foods heading, excluding headings for dairy or frozen confection classifications and thereby determining the applicable excise and tariff treatment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification: surgical povidone iodine solutions treated as specific medicinal goods, not generic cleaning preparations.
    The product's classification hinges on combined factors-composition, product literature, label, character and intended user-while a miniscule prophylactic ingredient is not relevant. Because the solution is used by surgeons to degerm hands and scrub patient skin to prevent infection, it is classifiable as a medicament under the specific tariff entry rather than under a residuary entry for cleaning preparations.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Tariff classification: composition-based rule places slagwool and rockwool under the slag-derived mineral wool heading rather than stone wool.
    A composition-based tariff rule governs classification: products where blast furnace slag or similar material constitutes the requisite proportion by weight are classifiable under Sub-heading No.6807.10 for slag-derived mineral wool rather than under the general stone/rock wool heading; prior tribunal decisions follow the same composition-focused approach.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of board games: Scrabble is a game, not an educational toy, and falls under the tariff heading for games.
    Scrabble is classifiable as a board game under the tariff heading for games (Chapter 95) rather than as an educational toy or article of furniture, because its defining elements of chance and skill distinguish it from toys; this classification applies equally to simplified or junior editions which retain the essential game attributes.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Tariff classification: tooth powder treated as heading 3306 and excluded from Chapter 30 despite medicinal properties.
    The tooth powder "Dant Manjan Lal" is classifiable under Sub heading 3306 for tooth powders and similar preparations; despite possessing therapeutic properties, Chapter Note 1(d) of Chapter 30 excludes it from classification under Chapter 30, so the Chapter 33 description governs the tariff classification.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Tariff classification: Aluminium castings classed under subheading 84.32, altering their excise tariff placement.
    Classification dispute over cast metal components turns on tariff interpretation: Aluminium castings are to be classified under Sub Heading 84.32 rather than under 84.09, applying tariff nomenclature and interpretive principles to allocate goods to the aluminium-specific heading for central excise purposes.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of perfumed hair oil: perfume addition places the product under specified tariff subheading, altering excise treatment.
    The Supreme Court held that the addition of perfume to a hair oil product results in classification under Sub Heading 3505.10 rather than under the alternate tariff heading previously relied upon, clarifying the proper excise tariff interpretation and product characterisation for assessment purposes.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Tariff classification of chillers confirmed under sub-heading 84.18 rather than 84.19, clarifying applicable excise head.
    The key operative point is that the term "chillers" is classifiable under Sub Heading 84.18 of the Tariff Act rather than Sub Heading 84.19, resolving the tariff heading applicable to chillers for central excise classification.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Central Excise

      what is the procedure of prosecution? FOR EVASION OF SERVICE TAX OR CENTRAL EXCISE :

      18 December, 2015

      Contents
      Circulars
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Circular No. 1009/16/2015-CX - Dated: 23-10-2015 - Central Excise - Guidelines for launching of Prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994 regarding Service tax

      what is the procedure of prosecution?

       Procedure for sanction of prosecution

      Prosecution proposal should be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner / Principal Chief Commissioner or Director General / Principal Director General of DGCEI ( in respect of cases booked by DGCEI) after the case has been carefully examined by the Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner or Additional Director General /Principal Additional Director General of  DGCEI who has adjudicated the case. In all cases of arrest, examination of the case to ascertain fitness for prosecution shall be necessarily carried out.

       Prosecution should not be launched in cases of technical nature, or where the additional claim of duty/tax is based totally on a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of law. Before launching any prosecution, it is necessary that the department should have evidence to prove that the person, company or individual had guilty knowledge of the offence, or had fraudulent intention to commit the offence, or in any manner possessed mens rea (guilty mind) which would indicate his guilt. It follows, therefore, that in the case of public limited companies, prosecution should not be launched indiscriminately against all the Directors of the company but it should be restricted to only against persons who were in charge of day-to-day operations of the factory and have taken active part in committing the duty/tax evasion or had connived at it.

      Prosecution should not be filed merely because a demand has been confirmed in the adjudication proceedings particularly in cases of technical nature or where interpretation of law is involved. One of the important considerations for deciding whether prosecution should be launched is the availability of adequate evidence. The standard of proof required in a criminal prosecution is higher as the case has to be established beyond reasonable doubt whereas the adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of probability. Therefore, even cases where demand is confirmed in adjudication proceedings, evidence collected should be weighed so as to likely meet the test of being beyond reasonable doubt for recommending prosecution. Decision should be taken on case-to-case basis considering various factors, such as, nature and gravity of offence, quantum of duty/tax evaded or Cenvat credit wrongly availed and the nature as well as quality of evidence collected.

        Decision on prosecution should be normally taken immediately on completion of the adjudication proceedings. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal [2011(266)ELT 294 (SC)] has interalia, observed the following :-

      (i) adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings can be launched simultaneously; (ii) decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other and (iv) the findings against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution.” Therefore, prosecution may even be launched before the adjudication of the case, especially where offence involved is grave, qualitative evidences are available and it is also apprehended that party may delay completion of adjudication proceedings.

        Principal Commissioner/Commissioner or ADG (Adjudication) acting as adjudicating authority should indicate at the time of passing the adjudication order itself whether he considers the case to be fit for prosecution so that it can be further processed and  sent to Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/ Director General of DGCEI, as the case may be, for sanction of prosecution. Where at the time of adjudication proceedings no view has been taken on prosecution by the Adjudicating Authority then the adjudication wing shall re-submit the file within 15 days from the date of issue of adjudication order to the Adjudicating Authority to take view of prosecution. Where, prosecution is proposed before the adjudication of the case, Commissioner/Principal Commissioner or Principal Additional Director General/Additional Director General, DGCEI who supervised the investigation shall record the reason for the same and forward the proposal to the sanctioning authority. The adjudicating authority shall also be informed of the decision to forward the proposal so that there is no need for him to examine the case at the time of passing of adjudication order from the perspective of prosecution. Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/ Director General of DGCEI may on his own motion also, taking into consideration the seriousness of an offence, examine whether the case is fit for sanction of prosecution irrespective of whether the adjudicating authority has recommended prosecution.

       In respect of cases investigated by DGCEI, the adjudicating authority would intimate the decision taken regarding fitness of the case for prosecution to the Principal Additional Director General/ Additional Director General of the Zonal Unit or Headquarters concerned, where the case was investigated and show cause notice issued. The officers of unit of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence concerned would prepare an investigation report for the purpose of launching prosecution, within one month of the date of receipt of the decision of the adjudicating authority and would send the same to the Director General, CEI for taking decision on sanction of prosecution. The format of investigation report is annexed as Annexure-I to this Circular.

       In respect of cases not investigated by DGCEI, where the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner who has adjudicated the case is satisfied that prosecution should be launched, an investigation report for the purpose of launching prosecution should be carefully prepared within one month of the date of issuance of the adjudication order . Investigation report should be signed by an Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, endorsed by the jurisdictional Principle Commissioner/Commissioner and sent to the Principal Chief/ Chief Commissioner for taking a decision on sanction for launching prosecution. The format of investigation report is annexed as Annexure-I to this circular. A criminal complaint in a court of law should be, filed by the jurisdictional Commissionerate only after the sanction of the Principal Chief / Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/Director General of DGCEI has been obtained.

       Principal Commissioner/Commissioner or Additional Director General (Adjudication) shall submit a report by 10th of every month to the Principal Chief /Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General/ Director General of CEI, who is the sanctioning authority for prosecution, conveying whether a view on launching prosecution has been taken in respect of adjudication orders issued during the preceding month.

       Once the sanction for prosecution has been obtained, criminal complaint in the court of law should be filed as early as possible by an officer of the jurisdictional Commissionerate authorized by the Commissioner.

      It has been reported that delays in the Court proceedings are often due to non-availability of the records required to be produced before the Magistrate or due to delay in drafting of the complaint, listing of the exhibits etc. It shall be the responsibility of the officer who has been authorized to file complaint, to take charge of all documents, statements and other exhibits that would be required to be produced before a Court. The list of exhibits etc. should be finalized in consultation with the Public Prosecutor at the time of drafting of the complaint. No time should be lost in ensuring that all exhibits are kept in safe custody. Where a complaint has not been filed even after a lapse of three months from the receipt of sanction for prosecution, the reason for delay shall be brought to the notice of the Principal Chief/ Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or Director General of DGCEI by the Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner in charge of the Commissionerate responsible for filing of the complaint

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax