I-T - Cognizance of a matter ought to be taken by High Court holding territorial jurisdiction, more so, where first SCN was issued by AO to assessee within jurisdiction of such court: HC

I-T - As per settled law, an additional evidence can also be recorded during appeal against conviction or acquittal: HC

I-T - Even if a document is seemingly likely to extend any benefit to an accused, albeit remotely, the prosecution is supposed to produce it before the Court: HC

I-T - Assessees cannot sail in two boats at the same time; writ petition can be rejected where option of statutory appeal has been utilised concurrently: HC

ST - Since Commissioner (A) has not given any finding on claim of appellant to settle the case under Section 73(3) of FA, 1994, therefore, matter needs to be reconsidered in the light of said Section: CESTAT

Cus - When there is no difference in the fact regarding nature of goods imported in present bill of entry and bills of entry wherein adjudication order was passed, matter needs to be re-considered:CESTAT

CX - Act of appellant by providing blank LRs establish the abetment in passing of fraudulent cenvat credit which clearly falls under four corners of Rule 26(2) of CER, 2012: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1163-CESTAT-AHM

Amul Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - A SCN was issued alleging that appellants were required to obtain registration under Service Tax category of BAS and pay Service Tax, but appellant had failed to do so within prescribed time limit - Appellant have paid Service Tax in excess as claimed by them, and it was submitted that excess amount shall be taken care of liability of interest - If this be so the Commissioner(A) should have considered this issue - However, Commissioner (A) has not given any finding on the claim of appellant to settle the case under Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 - Therefore, matter needs to be reconsidered in the light of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 - Hence, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Gujarat State Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The issue involved is that whether appellant is eligible for exemption Notification No. 1/2017-I.T. (Rate) and whether the goods imported by appellant is "Fertilizer Grade Phosphoric Acid" - There is no difference in the fact regarding nature of goods imported in present bill of entry and bills of entry wherein the adjudication order was passed - In this development, matter needs to be re-considered, considering the order in original - Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside and matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Samir Transport Company Vs CCE & ST

CX - Penalty was imposed on appellants under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in connection with fraudulent passing of cenvat credit on invoices issued by M/s Accord Industries Limited to M/s Archon Engicon Limited - Appellant have admittedly provided the blank LRs to M/s Accord which were used for passing of fraudulent cenvat credit - Accordingly, act of giving blank LR books itself clearly falls under purview of Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2012 - It is immaterial that whether appellants were handling the goods or otherwise - Even providing blank LRs establish the abatement in passing of fraudulent cenvat credit - Act of appellants clearly falls under four corners of Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2012 - Impugned order imposing penalty is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT