2022-TIOL-805-CESTAT-DEL
Mohd. Faiyaz Vs CCGST
ST - SCN has been issued in a mechanical way without referring to records by Department - When SCN was issued in year 2019, ST returns, which were filed in November 14 and July 15, were available on record of Revenue - But it is alleged in SCN that appellant have failed to file returns - Assessee had filed reply to SCN along with copy of ST-3 returns - There is total failure on the part of assessing officer to consider the reply filed as well as documents annexed therewith, being copy of ST-3 returns - On perusal of O-I-O, it is found that in spite of assessee being a registered assessee, Assessing Officer has failed to look into records and refer to copy of returns already filed - Extended period of limitation is not invokable, as there is no failure on the part of assessee to discloses taxable turnover and depositing the admitted taxes - There is likely to be some difference in turnover as per ST-3 returns, as same is on accrual basis as compared to turnover reflected in Form-26 AS because this is as per receipt basis - Assessee is directed to file reconciliation statement before Adjudicating Authority reconciling the turnover as per ST-3 return and as per Form 26 AS, for the purpose of appraisal - If any tax is found payable by assessee, they shall deposit the same as per Rules - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-804-CESTAT-ALL
CCGST Vs Preet Machines Ltd
CX - Issue involved is about absolute confiscation of cash seized from residential premise of Shri Preet Singh, Director of M/s PML and from residence of Shri Ritesh Kapoor alleged broker/agent for cenvatable invoices - Department in addition to proposing confiscation of seized cash seeks to impose penalty under Rule 26 of CER, 2004 invoking provision of Section 121 of Customs Act, 1962 as made applicable to Central Excise vide Notfn 68/63 as amended - Department also seeks to impose penalties - Main allegation of Department is that assessee M/s PML have availed CENVAT credit only on basis of forged/doctored documents like invoices without purchasing, receiving or utilizing material in manufacture of their final product, i.e., 'steel rolling machine' - There is certain contradiction in approach of Department - On one hand Department's allegation is that there is no movement of goods and on the other hand seeks to impose penalty on appellants for dealing with goods in an illegal manner - Such logic is not acceptable - Provisions of Rule 26 ibid have not been satisfied to impose penalties - Adjudicating Authority has found that assessees herein have duly accounted for cash seized from their premises and as they have not dealt in any manner with goods that can be held liable for confiscation, no penalty is imposable on them - When Adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Authority have given categorical findings against allegations made in SCN giving cogent reasons, Department is attempting to take issue back to the beginning by filing these appeals - Department has not made any case for confiscation of cash seized from premises of Shri Gurmeet Singh and Shri Preet Singh regarding seizure of cash - There are no reasons as to why impugned order needs to be interfered with - To that extent, impugned order is legally sustainable and maintainable: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-803-CESTAT-BANG
Jyothi C Jain Vs CC
Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order whereby Commissioner enhanced the value of imported goods and consequently confirmed differential duty demand and also imposed penalty, redemption fine and demanded interest relying upon various evidences and statements of various persons - However, lower authorities have not considered the request of appellant for cross-examination - It is not the option for Adjudicating Authority to allow or not to allow the cross-examination, if appellant has requested for cross-examination, it is in interest of principle of natural justice the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to conduct cross-examination of witnesses - Since the lower authorities have relied upon Panchnama and under which the various documents were recovered and those documents were used as evidence against appellant, it is necessary that the cross-examination of Panch witnesses should be allowed - Accordingly, matter needs to be re-considered after allowing cross-examination of witnesses as requested by appellant - Therefore, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT
