News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
CX - Re-quantification of demand - When first & last page of SCN indicates that notice was issued on 09/07/1998 it is very strange as to how Revenue has come to conclusion that SCN has been issued on 19/06/1998 - ground to file appeal is frivolous: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 23, 2014: TAKE a look at the time and energies the department has in pursuing an appeal.

This is the 2 nd round of litigation.

In the earlier round, the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to re-quantify the duty for a period of six months after allowing the benefit of MODVAT credit, for which purpose the appellants would produce the relevant documentary evidence.

Consequent to the remand order, the adjudicating authority viz. Commissioner, after noticing that the SCN was issued on 09.07.1998, re-quantified the demand for the period 09.01.1998 to 09.07.1998 by extending the benefit of MODVAT credit.

As mentioned, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and submits that the Commissioner has erred in quantifying the demand inasmuch as since the SCN was issued on 19.06.1998, the demand should have commenced from 19.12.1997.

None appeared for the respondent probably because he may have felt that it was a waste of time and money.

The Bench observed -

"6. In fact, the show-cause notice has been issued on 09.07.1998. This fact can be verified from the first page and the last page of the show-cause notice itself. Therefore, it is very strange and also not understandable how the Revenue has come to the conclusion that the show-cause has been issued on 19.06.1998. Therefore, the ground taken by the Revenue to file the appeal is totally frivolous and on this ground itself the demand is not sustainable. I further find that in the remand proceedings, there was a clear-cut direction to the adjudicating authority to re-quantify the duty for a period of six months prior to the date of show-cause notice after allowing the benefit of MODVAT credit. The Tribunal's order has been accepted by the Revenue as no appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the said order. Therefore, the question of demanding differential duty for which the respondent has not shown any proof, is not sustainable because the issue has become final in the earlier round of litigation, hence the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld…."

The Revenue appeal was dismissed.

(See 2014-TIOL-1309-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.