Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing K.I. Pavunny vs The Asstt Collector, Cochin on 24 February, 1998

Acit.,Circle-1,, Bhavnagar vs Shree Krishna Developers, Bhavnagar on 4 April, 2017

iv) In K.I. Pavunny Vs. Asstt.CCWE 1997 (90 ELT 241)(SC). three judges Bench of Supreme Court observed that if the confessional statement is retracted, the Court is required to examine whether it was obtained by threat, duress or promise and also whether the confession is Truthful, If it is found to be voluntary and Truthful inculpatory portion of the retracted confession can be acted and even conviction can be based upon the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 25 November, 2020

• Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 SC • Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sh Ravi Mathur (DB Income-tax appeal no 67/2002) & others • Dr. S. C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All) • S. S. Ratanchund Bholanath vs. CIT 210 ITR 682 (MP) • Hirasingh Co. Vs. CIT 330 ITR 791 (HP) • K. I. Pavunny vs. Asstt. CCWE 1997 (90 ELT 241) (SC) • Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2008 dated 18/12/2018) • Pr. CIT vs. Roshan Lal Sancheti (DB. Appeal No. 47/2018 dt 30/10/2018) (Rajasthan High Court) • Bachittar Singh vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 400 (P& H) 8 ITA No. 1236 & 1429/JP/2018 DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gopal Mills vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 5 February, 2002

10. The present proceedings have been started by the Department as the Central Excise Officers on visit of their factory premises on 24-1-1998 found variation in factor 'd' of Mill 'B'. According to the Revenue the factor 'd' was measured by the Foreman of the Appellants in the presence of one of their partner, Shri Sushil Mittal, who admitted the increase in factor 'd' from 350 mm to 405 mm in his statement dated 24-1-98. The Appellants have not mentioned that the statement tendered by the partner was retracted or both their partner and foreman denied to have signed the verification report prepared on 24-1-1998. The Appellants have only mentioned that the partner Shri Sushil Mittal, "observing that the staff was mentally prepared, as usual, to book a case against the party, obliged the visiting staff by tendering his statement according to their suitability and wishes." Nothing prevented him to retract his statement. The Adjudicating Authority has referred to the judgment in the case of K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court observed that the confessional statement if found to be voluntary can form the sole basis of conviction. The Appellants' claim to have taken a Certificate dated 28-1-1998 from a chartered engineer according to which there was no change in 'd' factor. Strangely enough, there is nothing on record to show that even the Certificate was sent to Department immediately on receipt of the same. It appears that the said Certificate was only sent on 5-3-98 in reply to letter-dated 4-3-98 of the Range Superintendent. We, therefore, find no infirmity in rejecting the said Certificate by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned Order. The learned Advocate has referred to another visit of the Central Excise Officer of the factory on 29-1-98. This visit, it appears from the Record was paid by Range Superintendent to verify as to whether the furnace was of Batch type or pusher type. The Order dated 27-4-98 was issued by the Commissioner based on the declaration filed initially by the Appellants. The impugned Order has been passed after completion of investigation and on the basis of preventive checks carried out by the preservative staff and the measurement of 'd' factor of Mill 'B' done by the Foreman and the statement of Shri Sushil Mittal, Partner. We, however, observe that there is no evidence with the Department to come to the conclusion that the factor 'd' was changed with effect from 1-10-1997. According to the statement of the partner recorded on 24-1-98, the change was effected in the first week of November, 1997. The change in factor 'd' of Mill 'B' is to be taken into consideration only from November, 1997 and hot from October, 1997. The Adjudicating Authority is required to recompute the duty liability and intimate the same to the Appellants who are liable to pay the same. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that penalty imposed is on the higher side. We reduce the same to Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Joaquim Alemao And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 13 February, 2004

In a different context the Supreme Court in the case of K.I. Pavunni v. Assistant Collector, Cochin (1997 (90 ELT 241)) held that a person's evidence recorded Under Section 108 can be relied upon even when he is an accused in that case. Costao tendered his evidence Under Section 108 of the Customs Act and his testimony can be relied upon even without any corroboration.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Gurminder Singh vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 27 November, 2006

2) SC 459, Ravinder Singh @ Bittoo v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (2) JCC 1059 SC; A.K.Mehboob v. IO, NCB ; Pon Adithan v. Deputy Director, NCB, Madras 1999 (2) JCC SC 335; Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra ; Raj Kumar Karwal v. UOI and Ors. 1991 Cr.L.J. 97 (SC); Emmannuel Uchenna Ezenwosu v. NCB and Ors. 2003 (1) JCC 417; Ruiz Guerrero Dolores v. Customs 2000 (2) JCC (Delhi) 357 : 2000 (1) CC Cases High Court 8; Strino Juen Antanio v. Customs, 2000 (2) JCC (Delhi) 349; Collector of C.E. v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 2001; K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector ; F. Mario Pires v. Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi 1982 Cr. L.J. 461 Goa; Namdi Francis Nwazor v. NCB 1994 (1) Crimes 579 (DHC) and Triveni Prasad v. State of Maharashtra .
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - J M Malik - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next