Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Deepak Gupta And Soumen Chowdhury Versus CC (PREV.) KOL

2015 (11) TMI 1459 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Penalty under section 114(iii) and section 114AA - involvement in inflating the export price and the purchase documents in respect of synthetic fabric being exported under the DEPB scheme with intention to avail the higher incentive - Held that:- Granting three consecutive days of hearing i.e. at short intervals of a week or so cannot be considered as the reasonable opportunity afforded to the appellant before deciding the case. Moreover neither the order of the ld.Commissioner nor any evidence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee. - Stay Petition No.SP-70991/13 & Appeal Nos.Cus.Ap.76541/14 & 70966/13 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75269-75270/2015 - Dated:- 12-5-2015 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) And Dr.I.P.Lal, Member(Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Udayan Ganguly, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri S.Sharma, Commr.(A.R.) ORDER Per Dr.I.P.Lal. 1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. Instant appeal is filed agains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ic fabric being exported under the DEPB scheme with intention to avail the higher incentive. It is the submission that being aggrieved the appellant filed Writ Petition No.506 of 2013 before the Honble High Court of Calcutta as the impugned order was passed without providing to the appellant, a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The High Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction that the matter should be tried before the Tribunal, provided the appeal is fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ey did not cooperate with the investigation and did not attend the hearing, the ld.Commissioner has no choice, but to adjudicate the case on the basis of the available records. He produced before the Bench a copy of letter dated 29.11.2012 informing the appellant, the three consecutive days of hearing, but the appellant did not bother to attend the personal hearing. 5.1 We find that as per direction of the court, the question whether adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12.2012/ 18.12.2012. It however noticed from the order that the matter was heard by the ld.adjudicating authority on 14.01.2013. The order is silent whether the appellant was informed about the said hearing. 5.2 At the time of hearing the ld.Consultant has invited attention of the Bench to letter dated 26.07.2011 appearing at page 68 of the appeal paper book wherein Smt.Pinkey Gupta, wife of the appellant has informed about the reasons for non-appearance of the appellant against the summons. 5.3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version