Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 384 - CESTAT AHMEDABADRestoration of Appeal - Main contention of the revenue was that the appellants had not produced the correct documents and/or they have produced incorrect documents to the Tribunal which had resulted in setting aside the orders on the ground of limitation only - Held that:- The applications filed by the department were liable to be dismissed as such as there cannot be any application for restoration of appeals - At the most the applications could have been for rectification of mistakes, if any, on the face of the record - The applications filed by the department were took up as application for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record - The applications which were filed by the department were for the restoration of appeals which were allowed by the bench after hearing to both sides at length. Manipulation of ER-1 - Revenue was of the view that the appellant had manipulated the ER-1 returns which were produced before the Tribunal for obtaining relief on the ground of limitation - Held that:- The stand taken by the Revenue in both the applications seems to be totally erroneous and misguided and misconstrued, to such an extent that it was unsubstantiated wild allegation - The applications which were made by the department are misconstrued and were baseless as from random sample which had been taken up for verification. The assessee had indicated the quantitative discount on which no excise duty had been paid and cleared by them during the relevant period, and intimated the department - The downloaded pages from CBEC site, also indicate that the quantitative discounts were feeded in by the appellant during relevant period - before filing such an application, it was imperative on the part of the senior officers to verify the claims of the field formation, regarding such a serious allegation, as to manipulation of the returns that were filed before the Tribunal - the senior officers should have viewed, vetted the entire issue in a proper perspective and should have first understood the implication before filing the applications before the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue. Initiating Enquiry - Jurisdictional Commissioner was directed to initiate an enquiry to fix the responsibility and take appropriate action against the erring officers who had filed frivolous applications before the Tribunal.
|