|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 1429 Records
-
2014 (12) TMI 1136
Penalty u/s 78 - Enhancement of penalty - transmission and distribution of electricity - Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010 - whether the appellant is required to pay revised penalty - Held that:- in view of the Notification which exempts service tax upto 21-6-2010, the activity undertaken by them would not have been leviable to service tax at all if the appellant was not to pay the tax with interest and 25% of the penalty. Needless to say that the question of imposition of a revised penalty would not arise in such a situation since it would amount to imposing penalty on assessees who pay the tax as and when demanded with interest without questioning the right to collect and without any delay - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1135
Commercial Training or Coaching Service and Technical Testing and Analysis Service - exemption Notification No. 6/2006-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2006 - Held that:- Prior to introduction of Explanation to clause (zzc) of Section 65(105), by provisions of the Finance Act, 2010, there was considerable conflict as to whether an institute/establishment could be said to have provided Commercial Training or Coaching or where such coaching or training was provided without any commercial purpose or a profit motive. To clarify the issue legislature intervened and introduced the Explanation which clarifies that the expression “Commercial or Coaching Centre” includes any Centre or institute, by whatever name called, where training or coaching is imparted for consideration, whether or not such centre or institute is registered as a trust or a society or similar other organization under any law for the time being in force and is carrying on its activity with or without any profit motive. The provision enjoins that the expression “commercial training or coaching” shall be accordingly construed. This Explanation was introduced with retrospective effect, from 1-7-2003 i.e. the nativity of the relevant taxing provision. No prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/appellant insofar as its assessed liability to service tax under the category of Commercial Training or Coaching is concerned. As the assessed liability to service tax under the head Technical Testing and Analysis is directed to be recomputed de novo, by the order of the Appellate Commissioner, the levy of this component of service tax is at present in eclipse - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1134
Penalty u/s 77 & 78 - Held that:- Assessee has paid the entire amount of Service Tax, interest and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. In view of the payment of all dues we are of the opinion that the present case would fall under second proviso to Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Besides we do not find merit in the Revenue’s plea that penalty is necessarily to be imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, the said provision is prescribed in dealing circumstances where no penalty is specified elsewhere and the maximum penalty leviable at the relevant time under the said provision was maximum ₹ 5,000/-. In these circumstances, we do not find substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1133
Waiver of pre deposit - Site clearance and preparation service - Held that:- Appellant had sub-contracted the entire contract on a back-to-back basis to another contractor who executed the work and demand has been raised against the contractor who executed the work also. In view of the fact that the appellant had not executed the work and demand has been raised against the contractor who did the work, we consider that the appellant has made out a case for waiver - Stay granted.
Works contract service - Held that:- unless the procedure as prescribed under the relevant rules is followed, according to which the appellant was required to opt for composition scheme before making the payment of tax, they cannot avail the benefit. Under these circumstances, the claim for composition scheme may not be admissible to appellants at all. Hence, we find that appellant has not made out a case for waiver in respect of this amount. No financial difficulty has been pleaded. - Partial stay granted.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1132
Valuation of goods - Undervaluation - MRP based valuation of ceramic tiles - Demand of differential duty - Held that:- For the period prior to 1.3.2008, the provisions of Section 4A will be applicable and there is being no prescribed valuation rules under the said Section, the MRP/RSP cannot be re-determined; for the period post 1.3.2008, the value needs to be re-determined as per the valuation rules prescribed under Section 4A of Central Excise Act 1944, for which we remand the matter back to the lower authorities to follow the direction given by this Bench in the case of Acme Ceramics & Others (2014 (3) TMI 164 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD).
Confirmation of the duty liability as indicated hereinabove needs to be upheld; as appellant-assessees are not contesting the demand on the clandestine removal as has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority. As we are upholding the confirmation of the demand on the clandestine removal of the goods, we uphold the interest liability and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944. We also state that wherever the adjudicating authority has not extended the benefit of discharge of penalty @ 25% of the confirmed duty liability, the same is extended to those assessees - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1131
Rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Act – Procedural infraction do not prohibit the Assessee from the benefit of rebate - Goods had not been directly exported from a factory or warehouse. The warehouse from which the goods had been exported was a dealer’s godown in which duty paid goods were being stored and it was not a warehouse approved under Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – As per Adjudicating Authority, the identity/correlation of the goods originally cleared from the manufacturing unit with goods cleared from the godown could not be established - The Jurisdictional Superintendent has not supervised/verified the goods – Held that:- No advantage can be derived from an order passed by the Government in the case of Philip Electronics India Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 862 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE]. Once the exporter submits proof of the goods having been actually exported to the satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority, the goods were clearly identifiable and co-relatable with the goods cleared from factory on payment of duty, then, para 6 of the Circular issued by the Board enables waiving of or technical departure from procedural requirements. Those not having any revenue implications that they can be condoned.
All the statutory requirements emerging from Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 are satisfied and neither the Commissioner nor the Revisional Authority has committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record so also their orders cannot be termed as perverse enabling us to interfere in our Writ Jurisdiction - Decided against the revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1130
Demand of CVD and SAD on the goods cleared by 100% EOU - Clearance of goods to own DTA Unit under stock transfer - Held that:- in show cause notice and the impugned order no allegation or reasoning of any nature in raising such a demand was indicated and the demand was confirmed merely by relying upon demand chart which is an annexure to the SCN. As we find no allegations for demand has been stated either in the show cause notice nor there are any reasoning in the impugned orders for confirmation of such demand, we are of the considered view that such demand cannot be confirmed as it is not in accordance with law. - as there is no dispute that clearances were made by M/s STI to their own DTA Unit and the credit of SAD and CVD was available to the DTA Unit, hence the entire issue is revenue neutral. In such case it cannot be said that there has been intentional evasion of payment of duty by the appellant-assessee. We find that the goods were cleared on invoices indicating all the particulars and we do not find any deliberate act on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty. We are of the view that the demands raised by invoking extended period of limitation on this count are not invokable. For the foregoing reasons also we hold that the demand of SAD and CVD is unsustainable. However in respect of demand of CVD, based upon our above findings we hold that only the demand falling under normal period of limitation is sustainable, we hold it so. Since the most of the demand is set aside, having held that there was no intention to evade duty, we find that penalties imposed are unwarranted and they are set aside.
Demands of CVD raised by invoking extended period of limitation are not sustainable and only the demand of CVD under normal period would survive. We also set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC. - Decided partly in favour of assesse.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1129
CENVAT Credit - banking and financial services - Held that:- Eligibility of banking and financial services for cenvat credit, it is seen that this issue stands decided in favour of the respondent by the judgement of the Tribunal in the cases of JSW Steel Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 74 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) and Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 331 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] & MPI Machines Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 718 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. In view of this, the impugned order allowing the cenvat credit in respect of these services is correct and as such, there is no infirmity for the same. - definition of "input service" is very wide and covers not only the services which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, but also includes various services used in relation to the "business of manufacture of final product", be it prior to the manufacture of final products or after the manufacture of final products and that the definition of 'input service' is not restricted to the services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product.
No doubt that the inclusive part of the definition of "input' is restricted to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, whereas the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' extends to services used prior to/during the course of/after the manufacture of the final products. The fact that the definition of "input service' is wider than the definition of "input" would make no difference in applying the ratio laid down in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT) while interpreting the scope of 'input service'. Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) , we hold that the services having nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product would qualify to be input service under Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules. - Since during the period of dispute, definition of "input service" included the activities relating to business, in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court [2010 (10) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], it has to be held that definition of "input service" would cover not only the services which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but also all the services which are used in or in relation to the business of manufacture of final products, irrespective of whether those services are used before the manufacture, during the manufacture or after the manufacture. - No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1128
Rebate claim - effective rate of duty - Applicable Notification - Notification No. 2/08-CE dated 1.03.08 or Notification No.4/06-CE dated 1.03.06 - Held that:- Instructions issued by CBEC regarding assessment of export goods are quite relevant to decide the issue involved in these cases - plain reading reveals that the export goods shall be assessed to duty in the same manner as the good cleared for home consumption are assessed. Further the classification and rate of duty should be as stated in schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with any exemption notification and /or Central Excise Rules, 2002. The CBEC instructions clearly stipulate that applicable effective rate of duty will be as per the exemption notification.
Notification No. 2/08-CE dated .1.03.08 as amended prescribed General Tariff rate of duty @10% which was in fact brought down from 16% to 14% and then to 8% and finally to 10% by different amending notifications. The notification No. 4/06-CE dated 1.03.06 as amended prescribed effective rate of duty from initial rate of 0% to 8%, 8% to 4% and finally to 5% by different amending notifications. As such it is not correct to say that it is a case of applicability of two notifications only and assessee is at liberty to choose anyone notification which is beneficial to. him. In this case, notification No. 2/08-CE as amended provided for General tariff rate of duty and Notification No. 4/06-CE as amended provided for effective rate of duty and they have to be strictly construed.as such. when two notifications co-exit simultaneously, the, assessee has the option to choose anyone of the notifications beneficial to him. Hon'ble Apex Court [2001 (3) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has categorically held that in such a situation assessee has option to choose anyone notification. Apex court has not stated that assessee can avail both the notifications simultaneously. In the instant case applicant has not chosen one notification or all the clearance but decided to avail benefit of both the notifications.
There is no merit in the contentions of applicants that they are eligible to claim rebate of duty paid @10% i.e. General Tariff Rate of Duty ignoring the effective rate of duty @4% or 5% in terms of exemption notification No.4/06-CE dated 1.03.06 as amended. As such Government is of considered view that rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of duty i.e. 4% or 5% in terms of Notification No.4/06-CE dated 1.03.06 as amended, as applicable on the relevant on the transaction value of exported goods determined under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. - the amount paid, in. excess of duty payable on one’s own volition cannot be retained by Government and it has to be returned to manufacturer applicant in the manner in which it was paid. Accordingly, such excess paid amount/duty which is required to be returned to the applicants, has already been allowed by the original authority - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1127
Denial of rebate claim - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004 –CE( NT) dated 06.09.2004 - effective rate of duty - Applicable notifiction - Notification No 2/08-CE dated 01.03:2008 or Notification No. 4/2006 –CE dated 01.03.2006 - Held that:- instructions issued by CBEC regarding assessment of export goods are quite relevant to decide the issue involved in these cases - plain reading reveals that the export goods shall be assessed to duty in the same manner as the good cleared for home consumption are assessed. Further the classification and rate of duty should be as stated in schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with any exemption notification and /or Central Excise Rules, 2002. The CBEC instructions clearly stipulate that applicable effective rate of duty will be as per the exemption notification.
Notification No. 2/08-CE dated .1.03.08 as amended prescribed General Tariff rate of duty @10% which was in fact brought down from 16% to 14% and then to 8% and finally to 10% by different amending notifications. The notification No. 4/06-CE dated 1.03.06 as amended prescribed effective rate of duty from initial rate of 0% to 8%, 8% to 4% and finally to 5% by different amending notifications. As such it is not correct to say that it is a case of applicability of two notifications only and assessee is at liberty to choose anyone notification which is beneficial to. him. In this case, notification No. 2/08-CE as amended provided for General tariff rate of duty and Notification No. 4/06-CE as amended provided for effective rate of duty and they have to be strictly construed.as such. when two notifications co-exit simultaneously, the, assessee has the option to choose anyone of the notifications beneficial to him. Hon'ble Apex Court [2001 (3) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has categorically held that in such a situation assessee has option to choose anyone notification. Apex court has not stated that assessee can avail both the notifications simultaneously. In the instant case applicant has not chosen one notification or all the clearance but decided to avail benefit of both the notifications.
There is no merit in the contentions of applicants that they are eligible to claim rebate of duty paid @10% i.e. General Tariff Rate of Duty ignoring the effective rate of duty @4% or 5% in terms of exemption notification No.4/06-CE dated 1.03.06 as amended. As such Government is of considered view that rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of duty i.e. 4% or 5% in terms of Notification No.4/06-CE dated 1.03.06 as amended, as applicable on the relevant on the transaction value of exported goods determined under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. - the amount paid, in. excess of duty payable on one’s own volition cannot be retained by Government and it has to be returned to manufacturer applicant in the manner in which it was paid. Accordingly, such excess paid amount/duty which is required to be returned to the applicants, has already been allowed by the original authority - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1126
Valuation of goods - Non inclusion of amount charged for development of the tools, moulds and dies in the assessable value of the motor vehicle parts manufactured - Held that:- For manufacture of motor vehicle parts as per the designs given by the individual customers, the appellant had, first, developed moulds, dies and tools and the cost of developing moulds, dies and tools had been fully paid by the customers. Thus, this amounts to receiving the required moulds, dies and tools free of cost from the customers for use in the manufacture of goods for them. In terms of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, where the excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act except that the price is not the sole consideration for sale, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the aggregate of such transaction value and the amount of money value of any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee.
Value of the moulds, dies and tools developed for each customer for manufacture of the motor vehicle parts for him and whose cost has been fully reimbursed by the customers, would have to be treated as additional consideration and their amortized value should have been included. But this has not been done. Thus, the appellant have not been able to establish prima facie case in their favour and conditions have to be imposed for safeguarding the interests of the Revenue - Partial stay granted.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1125
Cenvat Credit - Bogus invoices - respondent has received the invoices but has not received the inputs physically - evidence with the department is that the statements of the transporters wherein they said that the vehicle Nos. shown in the invoices is wrong and confirmed that the vehicle had not transported the goods to the respondent’s factory - Held that:- Mode of transport of inputs into the factory of the main respondent has been explained but the same has been controverted by the Revenue. Further, all the payments of inputs procured by the respondent have been made through banking channel. I also find that there is no shortage or excess inputs are found in their factory during the investigation. Moreover, the inputs have been used for the manufacture of final product. The main respondent has filed RT-12 returns regularly and the same has been accepted by the department. In these circumstances, relying on the decision in the case of Neepaz Steels Ltd. (2008 (7) TMI 410 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) clearly established that the RT-12 returns have been assessed finally by the Range Officer which contains all the documents including the invoices under dispute on the basis of which the Modvat credit has been availed and utilized and that payments for the purchase of inputs have been made through cheque/demand draft. In these circumstances, it cannot be alleged that the goods have not been received in the factory of the respondent. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Neepaz Steels Ltd. (supra) I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1124
Waiver of pre deposit - Penalty u/s 11AC - Whether the penalty is imposable on the appellant for the delay in payment of duty - Held that:- Appellant did not discharge duty liability for the months of June, 2010 and October, 2010 to April, 2011. However, in the monthly ER-1 Returns, they misdeclared that they had discharged the duty liability. However, the factual position was otherwise. The cheques, which the appellant had deposited towards payment of duty, were dishonoured by the Bank for want of funds in the account and these cheques were also returned to the appellant. The appellant were fully aware about non-payment of the duty. In spite of this knowledge, they did not inform this fact to the department. Further, in the monthly ER-1 Returns, they misdeclared that they had actually discharged the duty liability. This conduct on the part of the appellant is a wilful misstatement of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11AC are clearly attracted. Merely because the appellant discharged the duty liability along with interest prior to the issue of notice, the misconduct on the part of the appellant cannot be obliterated. As per the provisions of Section 11A(6), only on payment of duty, interest and penalty equal to 10% of such duty per month for which the default continued not exceeding 25% of the duty, the balance amount of penalty can be waived. In the present case, even though the appellant had discharged the duty and interest levied, they have not paid any penalty as stipulated in law. Therefore, the question of waiving of penalty would not arise at all. appellant had not made out a case for complete waiver of penalty adjudged against the appellant - Partial stay granted.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1123
Waiver of pre deposit - benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- Parts cleared by the appellants have been used for some other purpose or diverted to the market. In fact no evidence has been collected. Further, HAL was directly addressed by the Revenue and HAL has also replied that these items are parts of PTA Lakshya and they have been used for purpose for which they were obtained. Appellants have taken the precaution of getting an end-use certificate to show that the requirements of Notification are fulfilled. It has to be noted that on their own the appellant could not have ensured that the parts are to be for end-use for which exemption was allowed. Indian navy has also certified that these are parts of aircrafts. The only ground for the Revenue is that appellants have not shown any evidence that the parts have been used for service or maintenance or repair. It has to be noted that appellants could not have done more than what they have already done since investigation powers are not with them and they cannot ensure that the goods are to be for end-use for which they are meant. The department which has the power to investigate has not done so but is relying on technicalities to hold appellants are ineligible for exemption. Prima facie, we find that the appellant have made out a case for eligibility to the exemption Notification benefit which they have claimed. Therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal. - Stay granted.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1122
Waiver of pre deposit - 100% EOU - exemption from the aggregate duties of Customs - Notification No. 10/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 - Delay in filing of the ER-2 return - order beyond the scope of SCN - Held that:- decision in Webel-SL. Energy Systems Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 417 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) the said Circular was not before the Bench. Further the said Order does not consider the Final Order in Shanta Biotechnics Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 334 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] either. The stay order in Webel-SL. Energy Systems Ltd., was considered by the Tribunal in A.R. Stahchem (P) Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 523 - CESTAT KOLKATA], and overruled. Prima facie, we are also not in agreement with the prima facie ruling in Webel-SL. Energy Systems Ltd. In the circumstances, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal. Further there shall be stay on collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1121
Denial of refund claim of excess duty - Bar of limitation - Commissioner sanctioned refund claim - Assessee filed separate refund claims after 7 years - Held that:- When there is no provision for filing a second refund application, the question of limitation does not arise. Further, the time limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act would be for the first application and the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and therefore there can be no limitation in respect of the proceedings pursuing the refund claim. Accordingly, both the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1120
Petition filed against SCN - SCN alleges several acts of omission and commission at different places namely within the Commissionerate of Nhava Seva Port, Mumbai, at Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat, at Tuglakabad , New Delhi and at Kolkata - Held that:- Apart from settled principles, which indicate as to how the writ jurisdiction has to be exercised and for interfering with the show cause notice, we are satisfied that the apprehension of the Petitioner that the noticees may have to travel and face adjudication at several venues at the hands of different adjudicating officers is taken care of by the statement made, on instructions, by Mr.Jetly . We accept it as an undertaking given to this Court. We direct that the Respondents shall take the requisite steps so as to comply with their own guidelines and circulars to ensure that the adjudication will be held and concluded at one venue and not requiring the Petitioner to travel and attend the offices of several adjudicating authorities, bodies or officers, particularly at Delhi, Mumbai, in the State of Gujarat or at Kolkata.
The argument that there is a pre-adjudication and predetermination of the issues raised in the show cause notice need not detain us. That may require us to go into the contents and particularly merits of the show cause notice, which is not permissible at this stage. We clarify that it would be open for the Petitioner to raise all contentions including those based on the grounds in the Writ Petition at the adjudication of the show cause notice, it would also be open to them to contend that despite their appearance before the adjudicating authority, the show cause notice and to several persons, combining several issues, several acts of omission and commission alleged to have been committed by the persons and entities having no business connection or business relation makes the show cause notice itself vulnerable. Show cause notice purports to level certain allegations and serious doubts, but there is already determination or adjudication with regard thereto and issuance of such notice is, therefore, a mere formality. These and all contentions are kept open for being raised by the Petitioner before the adjudicating authority and equally at an appropriate stage thereafter. - Petition disposed of.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1119
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - contravention of Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Drawback claim - Misdeclaration of goods - Commissioner reduced redemption fine - Held that:- Two antiques valued at ₹ 883 were concealed under 673 old and used furniture attempted to be exported claiming drawback. Customs found that such antiques were prohibited goods and liable to confiscation. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that such a low value goods were not conceivable to be concealed for which conclusion of ld. adjudicating authority was wrong. Accordingly, he held that confiscation of 673 items of furniture was unwarranted. His finding is totally contradictory when he holds that under Section 103(f) of the Customs Act, 1962 old and used furniture were not eligible to draw back claim for which those were liable to confiscation. It is strange that how the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) came to a conclusion that the small value goods does not cause prejudice to the interests of justice when those prohibited goods were attempted to be exported. Once there was mis-declaration of description of goods, that calls for confiscation. Therefore, ld. Commissioner’s finding is erroneous in so far as non-concealment of the antique is concerned. The materials on record suggest that the antiques were two pillars with engraved architecture therein and the 673 furnitures were old and used. It is surprising how ld. Commissioner reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 12 lakhs to ₹ 5 lakhs when there was a deliberate mis-declaration of the goods in the shipping bills - Redemption fine and penalty upheld - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1118
Allegation on both sides - Held that:- Departmental Representatives are made helpless without instructions from the field and Revenue is unable to defend its cases for the lapses of the field staff. We request ld. Chief Departmental Representative to take up the matter before the higher authorities so that the Departmental Representatives shall be prepared with full information and instruction to assist the Bench. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1117
Violation of principle of natural justice - order did not take into consideration various grievances raised in the reply to show cause notice. So also cross-examination of two officers were not allowed. Even the appellant was not allowed to file respective documents prior to filing of reply to show cause notice - Held that:- Reasonable opportunity of hearing was not allowed and cross-examination not granted, we have directed appellant to file a note justifying the reason why cross-examination is required and also the chronology of the dates on which the appellant was required to appear and outcome thereof - The fact of existence of video recording in respect of search to the premises of appellant came to be noticed from record. If the appellant chooses to produce the same that should be produced on the next date of hearing. Appellant further says that certain other relevant documents shall also be filed. In view of the prayer of the appellant to allow opportunity to produce certain documents, matter is posted to further date - appeal disposed of.
............
|
9911796707
