Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 130 - AT - Central ExciseRecall of order - Revenue contended that the previous order [2013 (6) TMI 391 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] was passed on the strength of documents which on later enquiry were found to be fraudulent - Held that:- It is axiomatic and a principle which is well established that the power of review, of a judicial or quasi-judicial order should be expressly and legislatively conferred. Section 35C(2) of the Act does provide but not an uncanalised and unrestricted power of review/rectification. Grant of the power (of rectification) is subject to a specified limitation period and is authorised to be exercised in clearly specified circumstances, namely for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. - These applications by Revenue fall outside the ambit of the rectification power consecrated to us qua the express legislative grant under Section 35C(2) of the Act. Revenue does not plead nor establish before us that order dated 15.2,2013 is vitiated on account of any fraudulent document which was the basis for the conclusion as to illegality of invoking the extended period of limitation. Revenue's contention is that the declarations dated 14.4.2003 and 12.4.2004 (relevant to financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05) were never filed by assessee. This assertion is predicated on the fact that originals of these declarations are not currently available in Revenue records. Inference that the assessee did not file these declarations is based on the singular fact that there are overwritings/ interpolations in the receipt register of 2003-04, as opined by the Forensic Consultant. On the basis of this opinion, Revenue seamlessly proceeds to conclude that the interpolations were the product of a collaborative effort of some unknown officers of the Department, at the behest of or in connivance with the assessee. There is no interconnecting evidentiary material furnished for this ethereal leap to the conclusion. Nothing is placed before us to establish whether any departmental officer was found guilty of interpolations of the receipt register. No inculpatory statement was recorded from the assessee to support any conclusion as to its participation in tampering of Government records; No officer in-charge of pursuing the case of Revenue during 2006 to 2013 (pendency of the appeal), has been proceeded against for failing to rebut assessee's pleadings or to verify existence of the declarations in official records. - Revenue failed even by date to establish perpetration of any fraud by the assessee, on the basis of which these appeals were allegedly allowed; and failed to establish that the assessee had not submitted the declarations on 14.4.2003 and 12.4.2004 - Revenue failed to establish fraud as the factor vitiating our earlier order dated 15.2.2013 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|