9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated May 15, 2023 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in final order dated September 01, 2017 as well as the order passed in the rectification application dated 15.05.2023. The appellant/assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- a. Whether the Tribunal was justified in traversing beyond not only the scope of the SCN, but also the Order-in-Original in holding that the process of manufacture was not disclosed and that it came to the knowledge of the Department only when the officers visited the premises of the Appellant? b. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Order-in-Original which traversed beyond the scope of the SCN in holding that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e before the High Court or not. 6. It was pointed out that the determinative factor would be as to the nature of the order, which is impugned in the appeal. In the said case, it was held when the order under challenge is with reference to the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal the appeal was maintainable before the High Court. 7. This decision was noted by High Court with approval in the case of Roots Multiclean Ltd. Versus Cestat, Chennai, 2016 (336) E.L.T. 25 (Mad.). In the said case also the revenue raised a similar issue as has been raised before us that the matter pertains to valuation/rate of duty and, therefore, the High Court cannot entertain the appeal. After noting the scope of Section 35B of the Act, the Court held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h are handicrafts in the light of the circular issued by the Board. On receipt of the said communication, the department addressed a letter to the appellant/assessee dated 25.03.2004 seeking certain clarification as regards applicability of the circular issued by the Board. The assessee by reply dated 13.04.2004 set out in detail as to how their stand taken in their letter dated 16.03.2004 was justified. There was no further response from the department and the assessee appears to have been availing the benefit of the exemption notification. The department issued show-cause notice dated 19.12.2005 on the ground that though the notification was issued in the year 1986, the assessee have been clearing the goods upon payment of excise duty and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, the allegations contained in the show-cause notice have not been the basis for the decision arrived at and the decision was solely based upon an inspection stated to have been conducted in the business premises of the assessee that to after the reply was submitted by the assessee. 12. This would clearly show that the adjudicating authority went beyond the allegations in the show-cause notice and this would tantamount to clear case of violation of principles of natural justice and would render the order of adjudication as a nullity. With regard to the notification of the extended period of limitation is concerned, the onus is on the department at the first instance. 13. Except for using the expressions "Suppression of material fact" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
