TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner we do not find anything anywhere in the entire order, considering the allegations made in the show cause notice and the submissions made by the appellants while contesting the same. The only reason for the rejection of the claims made by the appellants is that they have not furnished the relevant information. There are no merits in impugned order as it is devoid of any reasoning and is without consideration of the submissions made by the appellant - the matter is remanded back to the original authority for consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 86650 of 2017 - A/87243/2021 - Dated:- 25-11-2021 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate, with Shri Vinay Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Nitin Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order in Original No 85- 87/ST-VII/CD/2016 dated 31.01.2017 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. By the impugned order, the Commissioner as held as follows: ORDER (i) SCN F. No. ST-11/Dn-V/Gr.1/Audit/Dow Chem/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order then the penalty payable shall be 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 76 ibid, provided the penalty amount is also paid within 30 days of the receipt of the Order. (d) I impose penalty of ₹ 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only), on M/s Dow Chemical international Pvt. Ltd., under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for their failure to file the prescribed returns correctly a required under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. (iii) SCN E. No. ST-VIV/Dn-1/Gr-111/Audit/Dow Chem/2015 dated 15.04.2016 amounting to ₹ 3,79,36,983 - (a) Thereby confirm amount of demand of ₹ 3,79,36,983/- (Three Crores Seventy Nine Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Three only), on M/s Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd., not paid by them during the period April 2014 to March 2015, in terms of provisions of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. (b) I order recovery of interest at the appropriate rate, on the amount confirmed above at Sr. No. (a), under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (C) I impose penalty of ₹ 37,93,698/- (Rs. Thirty Seven La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed after reversal under Rule 6(3A) 2.2 Appellant has separate registration as Input Service Distributor (ISD) with registration number 'AAACD4467BST002' at their Vikhroli, premises for the purpose of distributing the common credit to its units. 2.3 Appellant was reversing the proportionate Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 pertaining to exempt services i.e. trading turnover of the appellant. They also intimated the details of such reversal to the department, at the closure of each financial year. 2.4 During audit of the Appellant it was observed that the Appellant did not maintain separate books of accounts under Rule 6(2) of CCR and failed to reverse the CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in the present case. Accordingly the credit sought to be recovered was determined as follows Sr No Particulars 2008-2009 2011-2012 2012-2013 A Sale of Traded goods 398,29,81,356 840,12,24,945 1001,31,35,248 B Purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Profit on sale of Traded goods 138,91,24,637/- 222,09,10,560/- D 10% of Sale of traded goods (A) 110,93,99,537/- 116,22,94,727/- E Exempted Turnover whichever is higher of C or D 138,91,24,637/- 22,09,10,560/ F TOTAL TURNOVER 861,44,42,452/- 987,97,72,255/- G % age of reversal of Proportionate basis as per rule 6(3A) (E/F%) 16.13% 22.48% H Total Cenvat Credit taken on input Services 21,71,12,033/- 38,27,63,872/ I % age of reversal of proportionate basis as per Rule 6(3A) (H * G%) 3,50,20,171/- 8,60,45,318/- J Amount already reversed 2,35,38,184/- 4,81,08,335/ K. Difference (I-J) 1,14,81,987/- 3,79,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules. On harmonious and conjoint reading of Rule 6(1), (2) (3), it is clear that Total CENVAT Credit for the purpose of formula under Rule 6(3A) is only total Cenvat credit of common input service and will not include the Cenvat credit on input service exclusively used for the manufacture of dutiable goods. If the interpretation of the Revenue is accepted, then the Cenvat credit of part of input service even though used in manufacture of dutiable goods/provision of taxable output services, shall stand disallowed, which is not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Credit Rules. The aforesaid principle has been also reiterated by the Board under its Circular No. 754/70/2003-CX dated 09.10.2003 [pg. 62/ of case compilation) that no credit should be taken on inputs which are used exclusively in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products. Rule 6, Rule 6(3A) of the Credit Rules was amended vide Notification No. 13/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016, by substituting Rule 6(3A) (b)(ii) of the Credit Rules, to consider only common input services and not total input service credit, for the purpose of computing the amount of reversal. This view h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.07,51,736/- 2,24,68,589/- (A- B) Therefore, Credit actually reversed by the company, not considered by the department 31,70,021/- 23,99,385/- Total 55,69,406/ For computation of reversal ratio, the department has taken purchase price of the goods instead of cost of goods sold which is contrary to explanation 1 to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. If worked on the basis as per the explanation, the reversal ratio for the year 2012-13 will be 16.55% and not 21.47%. as determined by the revenue. The provisions of Rule 6(3) regarding reversal of CENVAT credit is not applicable at the end of ISD and the same are applicable at the end of recipient receiving such credit.Reliance is placed on CBEC Circular No. 868/6/2008-CX dated 9 May 2008 pg 63 of case law compilation wherein the board has issued clarifications. In question no 5 of the said circular, the board has explicitly mentioned that since ISD does not provide any service, the question of availing either option (1) or option (2) under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d their in their appeal that they are entitled to the entire credit for the period is not convincing as they have not provided supporting authenticated records maintained by them they only provided bulky details from various vendors but have not produced the documentary evidence showing the nexus of input services with output services. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 In response to the Show Cause Notice and the demand notices, appellants had made detailed submissions before the Commissioner. The submissions made by the appellant vide their letter dated 20.12.2016, and received by the adjudicating authority on 12.01.2017 are reproduced below: We, Dow Chemical International Private Limited ('DCIPL' or 'the Company refer to the captioned letter for Personal Hearing (*PH') granted to us. Firstly, we would like to thank you for granting us the PH in relation to our reply to the captioned Show Cause Notices (SCNs). The SCNs issued proposed to levy service tax of ₹ 10.65.06.027 for the period 2008-09. 2011-12 and 2012-13. ₹ 1,14,81,987 for the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT credit reversal as prescribed under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT rules. The copy of the said letters are attached herewith as Annexure I. Our submissions At the outset, it is submitted that the proposals made in the SCNs to levy service tax along with interest and penalty on non- payment of amount as required under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Rules is baseless, contrary to the facts and incorrect in law. We are submitting our detailed replies to the various allegations made in the impugned SCNs which are without prejudice to each other. Centralized registration and ISD registrations are two different registration 8 Firstly, the Company would like to submit that the centralized registration and ISD registration obtained by the Company are two separate registrations. Section 69 of the Finance Act 1994 requires every person liable to pay service tax, to be registered with the Central Excise and accordingly centralized registration has been obtained. Centralized registration is to be obtained by the Company for availing of input credit and payment of liability on output services. 9 The ISD neither manufactures the goods nor provides the service and thus there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 6(3) 8,00,105 2,40.67,869 2,48,67,974 Net Credit Availed 5,96,08,853 12,53,05,196 18,49,14,049 2013- 14 Availment of Credit 2008- 09 5,82,69,043 15,88,42,990 21,71,12,033 Reversal under Rule 6(3) 14,88.780 2.20.12,485 2,35,01,265 Net Credit Availed 5,67,80.263 13,68,30,505 19,36,10,768 2014- 15 Availment of Credit 2008- 09 15,65,09,343 22,62,54,529 38,27,63,872 Reversal under Rule 6(3) 4,81.08,335 4,81,08,335 Net Credit Availed 15,65,09,343 17,81,46,194 33,46,55,537 Jurisdiction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly availed credit can also not be done by issuing a notice to him. 18 Therefore considering the above circular and the judgment, issuance of show cause notice regarding credit availment under ISD registration is against the provisions of law. Reversal needs to be done at unit where credit has been distributed 19 It is clear from the definition of the ISD that it does not avail the CENVAT credit on input services. Its role is limited to receiving the invoice on which input credit is paid and then distributing the credit paid to the eligible units. Hence, provisions of Rule 6(3) regarding reversal of CENVAT credit is not applicable for the ISD. The contention of the company is also supported in the CBEC Circular No. 868/6/2008-CX dated 9 May 2008 wherein the board has issued clarifications regarding certain queries. In question no 5 of the said circular, the board has explicitly mentioned that since ISD does not provide any service, the question of availing either option (i) or option (ii) under Rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules does not arise. Copy of the said circular is attached herewith as Annexure II. 20 In line with the above submission pertaining to jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 24 In this regards. SCN was issued to the company in relation to the said error and after due verification of the documents an Order-In-Original was issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax - Mumbai VII wherein in para no 17, the commissioner as mentioned the amount of cenvat credit taken for the period April 2008 to September 2008 and October 2008 to March 2009 for the Centralised and ISD registration which in total is equivalent to the credit of ₹ 19,70,14,028 as mentioned above. Copy of the said order is attached herewith as Annexure IV. b. Incorrect reversal of credit in respect of services mentioned in Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: 25 Notwithstanding to the above submissions with regards to the jurisdiction over ISD. the company would like to submit that the Cenvat credit for the period 2008-09 reported under ISD registration includes services notified under Rule6(5) of CCR, 2004. In this regard the provision of Rule 6(5) of CCR, 2004 is produced hereunder for ready reference: Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), credit of the whole of service tax paid on taxable service as specified in sub-clause (g) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts submitted herewith. b. Incorrect calculation of amount availed as credit on input services 32 Further, the company submits that the authority has also erroneously calculated the total cenvat credit availed on input services for FY 12-13. In the impugned SCN, it has been alleged that the company has availed total cenvat credit on input service of ₹ 53,93,95,172. However, the company would like to submit that it has availed credit on input services only to the tune of ₹ 20,97,82,023. The said is also evident from the service tax return filed for the period 2012-13, which shows that the credit availed on input services is ₹ 20,97,82,023. The copies of service tax returns is attached herewith as Annexure VI. Method adopted by company for reversal only on Common Input Services availed is correct 33 The company follows a location wise method of availment of credit which is summarized as follows: Unit Activity Credit availment for eligible input services Kalwa Factory Unit Manufacturing Full credit availed Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Proportionate credit availed 37,722,278 22,144,192 15,578,086 Credit pertaining to FY 2008-09 availed under centralized registration 100,066,629 22,144,192 77,922,437 FY 2011-12 Unit Activity Credit availment Service Tax 6(3) Reversal Net Credit Chennai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 45,171,143 45,171,143 Powai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 6,365,199 6,365,199 Pune Export of taxable services Full credit availed 7,798,483 7,798,483 Head Office Common Services Proportiona te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Less Credit pertaining to 2011-12 2012-13 reversed based on revised ratio 397,251 (397,251) Total Credit availed under Centralized Registration (A) 60,408,958 930,732 59,478,226 FY 2013-14 Unit Activity Credit availment Service Tax 6(3) Reversal Net Credit Chennai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 44,405,699 414,714 43,990,985 Powai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 6,095,245 6,095.245 Pune Export of taxable services Full credit availed Vikhroli Market Support Services Proportio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 156,509,343 35 The company understands that a provider of taxable service is allowed to take CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of CENVAT Rules, on input services for paying service tax. If the service provider provides only taxable services, the entire amount of input credit is allowed to be set off. However, when a service provider provides taxable and exempted services, the entire amount of input credit is not available for set-off. In the scheme of CENVAT credit, input credit relatable to dutiable/taxable activities alone is eligible for set-off. Therefore, separate provision is prescribed in Rule 6 of CENVAT Rules for providers of taxable and exempted services for ascertaining the input credit relatable to exempted services that is to be foregone. 36 Rule 3 of CENVAT rules provides that CENVAT credit can be taken by the manufacturer of final product and taxable service provider and Rule 6 casts certain obligation on the manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods. Thus the credit of service tax paid on input services exclusively used in dutiable goods is not covered under Rule 6 of CENVAT Rules but covered under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Rules. Accordingly, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty and tax paid on inputs and input services used exclusively for providing taxable output service or for manufacturing excisable goods. Therefore, the present formulation of rule 6(3) of CENVAT Rules is relevant for cenvat credit on common inputs and common input services only. An assessee could take 100% credit on the input credit relatable to inputs and input services used exclusively for rendering taxable output services. 41 If any person is maintaining separate accounts for common inputs and input services utilised for providing taxable service as also exempted service, he has to utilise the credit relatable to taxable service and forego that relatable to exempted service in terms of rule 6(2) CENVAT Rules. Maintaining accounts for common inputs and input services would require some rational justification for allocation. It should be noted that sub-rule (2) requires separate accounts and not separate books of account to be maintained. 42 When an assessee does not intend to follow the procedure in rule 612) of CENVAT Rules, the procedure prescribed in rule 6(3) of CENVAT Rules is to be followed. As per sub-rule (3). an assessee has two options if it is not maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of rule 6(3). 45 Further Rule 613) of CENVAT Rules started with the expression *Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Rules (1) and (2) . That means, the provision of sub-Rule (3) to Rule 6 of CENVAT Rules would apply only to the extent of sub-Rules (1) and (2) to Rule 6 of CENVAT Rules contained something contrary. A reading of sub-Rules (1) and (2) to Rule 6 of CENVAT Rules showed that credit on common inputs and input services cannot be taken if these were used for exempted services, and input credit could be fully used on inputs and input services exclusively used for providing taxable services. Only when the service provider does not maintain separate accounts for the common inputs and input services, he had to follow the mechanism prescribed in sub-Rule (3). 46 The said view is also supported by circular issued by Central Board of Excise Customs ( Board') (Circular No. 754/70/2003- CX., dated 9-10-2003) wherein it has been clarified that Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 is only for common inputs and input services and the 8% reversal is only for common inputs and input services alone. The relevant extract is as under: 2. .............. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order reads point (ii) and (iii) of sub-clauses (c) of Rule 6(3A) in isolation and not the sub-clause (c) as a whole which reads as under: (c) the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service, shall determine finally the amount of CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods and exempted services for the whole financial year in the following manner viz. i) The amount of CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods, on the basis of total quantity of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of said exempted goods, denoted as H; ii) ........ and L denotes total CENVAT credit taken on inputs during the financial year minus H; iii) ....... and P denotes total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the financial year. The impugned order reads the underlined portions of (i) and (iii) which is disconnected to the underlined portion of (c) above. By making such an isolated reading, the impugned order denies the recredit of excess reversal of attributable CENVAT credit. The purpose of sub-clause (c) is to find out the attributable CENVAT credit in the manufacture of exempted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he function of the audit has been assigned to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. From the above, it is crystal clear that in case of private assessee, the Commissioner will refer the matter to an officer to collect the material or Chartered Accountant for the purpose of audit. Thus, for the purpose of audit, the material can be collected either by the officer authorized by the Commissioner or by the Auditor himself. But, audit will be performed only by the Chartered Accountant. It is pious duty of the assessee to make available the record as mentioned in Rule 5A i.e. trial balance or its equivalent; and the income-tax audit report, if any, under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the scrutiny of the officer or the Audit Party, as the case may be..... Thus, we find that there is no inconsistency in Rule 5A and section 72A of the Finance Act, 1994. The said provision is not arbitrary. The manner for conducting the audit is as per the accounting standard provided by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India. The audit report will be made available to the assessee, as per law. (Emphasis supplied) 52 In light of the above ruling, the Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that periodical return for the year 2008-09 and 2011-12 were filed in the year 2009-10 and 2012-13 respectively. Therefore, the time limit of one year as was prevailing up to 27 May 2012 has already expired before the date of issuance of the SCN i.e. 23 May considering the same, the SCN dated 23 May 2014 received by the company on 23 May 2014 is time barred and the demand for the years 2008-09 and 2011-12 is invalid and should be out rightly quashed. 57 It can be seen from section 73(1), that for invoking an extended period of limitation the department should not only show that there was a short levy on account of fraud, collusion, misstatement or suppression it must also be shown that this fraud, collusion, misstatement or suppression must have been made with the intent to evade the payment of duty. The said contention is also upheld by the tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs Allied Industries [2000 (XC3)-GJX-0675-CEGAT). 58 In the present case, the company had duly filed service tax returns for the period under dispute. In the returns, the company had disclosed the amount of cenvat credit availed as well as reversals made. Thus from the information available in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, submissions made in the replies to the impugned Show the submissions made during the Personal hearing and the evidence on record. 2. The issue involved in both the Show cause notices, is common and the submissions made in reply are also same. Since the issue under consideration and consequently the findings would be same for all the cause Notices, I propose to take up these Show Cause Notices for common adjudication under a single order. 3. The allegation made in the Show Cause Notices, is that the Noticee has availed Cenvat credit on input aced in both taxable as well as exempted services, without maintaining separate inventory and account of receipt and consumption of such common input services, as provided under Rule 6(2) of the CENVAR Credit Rules, 2004. It has been alleged in the SCNs that the noticee having not maintained separate accounts, was either required to pay an amount at the applicable rates for the relevant period, on the amount of exempted services or pay an amount equivalent to Cenvat credit attributable to input used for provision of exempted services, subject to the conditions and procedure specified in sub rule (3A) of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to ascertain provisionally the cenvat credit relatable to exempted turnover by adopting the ratio of exempted turnover to total turnover of the earlier financial year and pay an amount every month by multiplying this ratio with the cenvat credit claimed. This formula indicates that the attempt is to ascertain input credit relatable to exempted activities out of common inputs/input services. Logically the ratio should be applied to the credit on inputs/input services used in a mixed up manner for both taxable and exempted activities. That the formulation of rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 would apply to common inputs and input services and not to the inputs and input services, which are exclusively used for taxable services, is borne out by insertion of Explanation-II in rule 6(3) for removal of doubt . This explanation clarifies that credit shall not be allowed on inputs and input services used for the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted services. That means, such credit is outside the scheme of rule 6(3). This implies that such input credit would not participate in the allocation formula. On the same logic, the input credit relatable to inputs and input services used exclusively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erform the audit. In any case, the final report duly signed by the Chartered Accountant will be submitted to the Commissioner. In case of Government Autonomous Body, the function of the audit has been assigned to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. 4.2.3 In light of the above ruling, the noticee submitted that the officers of the service tax department are not legally authorized to carry out audit. The officers can only call for materials required for the audit and then the audit has to be conducted by independent chartered accountants. Evidently the same has not been done in the present case. The demand is not sustainable which is based solely upon the said audit report 5. In view of the above submissions, stated that extended period, penalty and recovery of interest is not sustainable. 6. As regards the plea of the noticee that they were maintaining separate records with reference to common input services used in taxable/exempted services. I find that except making such a bald claim they failed to tender any documentary evidence to establish their claim. They ought to have furnished the evidence in the form of various records maintained by them in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. Normally it will mean an Inspector or Superintendent of Central Excise/ Service Tax. Service providers of taxable services in the entire country are also required to be audited. The relevant enabling provisions for this are, (i) Section 65(121) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that words and expressions used but not defined in Chapter V of the said Finance Act and defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 of the rules made there under, shall apply, so far as may be in relation to Service Tax as they apply in relation to a duty of excise. (ii) Rule 212) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 lays down that all words and expressions used but not defined in Service Tax Rules but defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act and Rules. [Notification No. 2/94-ST,dated 28.06.1994] (iii) The definition of Central Excise Officer as contained in the Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will also apply to the Central Excise officers conducting Service Tax audit and shall also include Service Tax officers. Thus, a Central Excise officer assigned the duties of Audit in Service Tax in a proper of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service and records relating to availment of credit, including computerised accounts, can be appropriately examined by the officers while conducting audit. Hence, I am of the view that noticee's above contention is not legally tenable. The facts and circumstances of the case law relied upon by the noticee are of no assistance to their case. 14. As regard interest liability under Section 75, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow Vs Kanhai Ram Thekedar, 2005(185)ELT 3 (SC), it has been held in several matters that interest liability accrues automatically from confirmation of demand of duty/tax as recoverable. In the instant case, it has already been confirmed hereinabove that the noticee, who was liable to pay Service Tax in terms of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 and the rules framed thereunder, did not pay Service Tax on the correct value of services provided by them, in the manner laid down under the aforesaid Act/Rules. Therefore, the noticee is liable to pay interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the amount of Service Tax determined under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. 18. In view of the foregoing discussions and findings, I pass the following Order- 4.4 Even authorized representative has during the course of argument has not made any single submission contradicting the claim made by the appellants. His entire submission is based only on the non production of the documents. However we find that in para 34 of their reply reproduced by us earlier, appellant clearly state that they have provided the records year wise in as per Annexure VII, to that letter to the adjudicating authority. Commissioner in the impugned order do not contradicts the same nor records any finding in respect of the Annexure VII. In fact in the reply submitted by the Appellant then claimed in respect of the calculation errors, in the show cause notice, if these calculation errors while computing the demand are taken into account then major chunk of demand itself cannot survive. However we find that these calculation errors themselves have not been considered and adjudicated by the impugned order. Authorized representative has in his submissions referred to the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case Dilip Kumar [2018- TIOL-302-SC-CUS-CB], without even indicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocess as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the Life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which 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 incrementalism. (l) Reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
