Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 676 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 676 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 171 (P & H) - Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit - Invoices issued without actually receiving the goods - Corporation diverted the duty paid brass circles/strips/sheets purchased from M/s Agarwal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. in the open market - Held that:- a perusal of the Tribunal order shows that it does not satisfy the test of a reasoned and speaking order. Further, it was noticed that the case had been booked against the responde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rd its conclusions based thereon. No legally justified reasons have been recorded by the Tribunal for dismissing the appeal of the revenue. Therefore, since the tribunal's order does not qualify being a reasoned speaking order as enunciated by the Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and other [2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of revenue - CEA No. 8 of 2016 (O&M) - Dated:- 6-5-2016 - MR. AJAY KU .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by M/s Arihant Metal Corporation without actually receiving the goods? (ii) Whether the Assessee has contravened Rules 4 and 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and is liable for penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944? (iii) Whether M/s J.D. Auto had suppressed the material facts with the sole and wilful .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, copper strips etc. and is purchasing the said items mainly from M/s Agarwal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd., Rewari. It was found that the Corporation had altered the description of the goods, i.e. brass circles as brass sheets and brass strips as brass sheets etc. in the invoices to facilitate the buyers to avail inadmissible Cenvat Credit without actually receiving the goods. By adopting this modus operandi the Corporation diverted the duty paid brass circles/strips/sheets purchased from M/s Agarwal 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

penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity the 2002 Rules ). The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure A-1) confirmed the said recovery of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 33,13,670/- along with interest from the respondent-assessee and also imposed penalty of equal amount. Penalties of ₹ 33,13,670/- was imposed on the Corporation under Rule 26(i) and (ii) of the 2002 Rules and ₹ 1,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Sid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appeal, upheld the order, Annexure A-2 and disposed of the cross-objections. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the appeal of the revenue without considering the arguments raised by the department and relevant provisions of law. It was also urged that the impugned order does not satisfy the test of being a reasoned and speaking order and was, thus, liable to be quashed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xt. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report). 18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the proces .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ority vide order dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure A-1) confirmed the said demand along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount, i.e., ₹ 33,13,670/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who vide order dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure A-2) allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The revenue filed an appeal against the order, Annexure A-2, whereas the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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