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 →

Jagat Alloys P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

2016 (2) TMI 211 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Rectification of mistake - difference in opinion between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) the Hon’ble President nominated the Third Member (Technical) to resolve the difference of opinion - Whether the evidence produced by the Revenue establishes wrongful availment of Cenvat credit and consequently demand of duty and imposition of penalties is sustainable as held by Member (Technical)? - Held that:- In the present case, the question referred to the Third Member above, is very clear. What .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enue is not sufficient whereas Member (Technical) held that the evidence produced is sustainable. One Member may look at the evidence from a certain perspective whereas the other Member may look out the same evidence from different perspective. But the fact is that both the Members have given a definite conclusion based on the evidence on record. There is no finding in the order that a certain evidence was accepted by one Member and not accepted by other Member. Therefore, it is clear that a def .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erein hundreds of pieces of evidence, the opinion of each Member would need to be expressed on each piece of evidence in the difference of opinion. This is neither practical nor the intention of the law. ROM application is dismissed. - E/1625/2006-Mum - Misc. Order No. M/4623/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 11-9-2015 - Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (T) and S.S. Garg, Member (J) Shri Vishal Agarwal with Nikhil Rungta, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Hitesh Shah, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

application is filed seeking rectification of the mistake that has crept in the framing of the questions referred to the Hon ble Third Member which is reproduced below :- The evidence produced by the Revenue is not sufficient to establish the fraudulent availment of credit by the appellant and consequently the demand of duty should be set aside and penalties are not imposable as held by Member (Judicial) OR Whether the evidence produced by the Revenue establishes wrongful availment of Cenvat cr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Profiles and section purchased from M/s. Sangli Aluminium and Extrusions P. Ltd. (SAEPL for short) - Statement of Mr. Mangesh Vishnu Mahaname, Proprietor of Vaishali Roadways; - Statement of Dinesh Ramnarayan Yadav, Accountant of the applicant. - Statement of C.S. Rawat, Factory in-charge of the applicant. - Documents seized from the premises of SAEPL. - Statement of Mr. Ravindra Chedda, Director of SAEPL; - Documents furnished upon examination of check post through which Mahadeo Parab, Proprie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anager of M/s. B.S. Patel Roadways; - Statement of Mr. Gururangappa, Managing Director of M/s. B.S. Patel Roadways; - Statement of Dinesh Ramnarayan Yadav, Accountant of the applicant; - Statement of C.S. Rawat, Factory in-charge of the applicant; - Raw material Receipt Register, Transport Vouchers and RG 23A-Part-I - Statement of Mr. Asit K. Mandal, Authorised signatory of SAPL 3.2 In the application such list of evidence is given till para t . We are not reproducing the entire list of evi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nical). It is his apprehension that it may so happen that in respect of finding pertaining to one evidence the Third Member may agree with Member (Judicial) whereas in respect of other finding pertaining to another evidence he may agree with Member (Technical). According to him separate questions ought to have been framed for each credit availed. 3.4 On the issue of maintainability he relied on Colourtex v. UOI - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 426 (Guj.) = 2006 (198) E.L.T. 169 (Guj.) and Suzlon Infrastru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ication of mistake the mistake must be obvious. In the present case, the question framed for reference is clearly set out for decision, i.e., whether evidence produced by Revenue is sufficient to establish the fraudulent availment of credit. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the citations relied upon by the ld. counsel are on a different footing. The facts in the case of Suzlon Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) were different. In that case it was pleaded that the Tribunal M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ordance with law, if they are relevant for determining the proviso. In the case of Jagat Texturising - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 564 (Guj.) = 2010 (255) E.L.T. 353 (Guj.), it was held by the Hon ble High Court that the two Members who recorded dissenting opinions referred the entire appeal as follows :- Difference of Opinion Whether the appeals of M/s. Jagat Texturising and one other in Appeal Nos. E/941 and E/942/05 are to be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants as held by Member (Judicia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on ble High Court held that the two Members must state the points on which they differ. 5.1 We find the situation in the present case is different. In the present case, the question referred to the Third Member above, is very clear. What has been referred for opinion of the Third Member is whether the evidence produced is sufficient to establish fraudulent availment of credit. It is not brought out by the counsel that the two Members had agreed on the sufficiency of some evidence and disagr .....

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