News Update

CBDT explains what is 'tax effect' for purpose of filing appeal in cases beyond monetary limitsUS-UK coalition airstrikes at Houthis in Red Sea portPMK joins NDA; to share dais with PM at SalemUK begins hunt for sunken ship loaded with gold worth 4 bn poundsPrivacy at Stake: Evaluating Data Principal Rights in the DPDP Act 2023Delhi regains its title as world’s most polluted cityLitigation Management: CBDT revises instructions and monetary limits prescribed for filing appeal or SLP before courtsUnsettled borders and rise of China major challenges for defence forces, says Chief Anil ChauhanI-T- Rules of natural justice are contravened where notices of hearing are not sent to valid email addresses indicated by assessee & order passed in consequence thereto is invalidated : HCAmerican IRS Chief expects workforce to surpass one-lakh-mark in next 3 yrsI-T - Provisions of Section 148A clearly require that an assessee be granted opportunity of personal hearing & an order passed in non-compliance with this requirement stands vitiated: HCDeloitte LLP goes for restructuring to tamp down costsI-T - If no error is being found by AO qua acceptance and genuineness of transaction of assessee, then AO cannot initiate reopening, and if reopening is not permitted, then CIT cannot issue notice u/s 263: ITATNvidia unfolds powerful chip to retain edge in AI marketI-T - Additions framed u/s 68 were rightly quashed where the assessee has discharged onus of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction : ITATTrump’s lawyer says Trump has not means to raise bond in USD 464 mn fraud caseI-T- Addition cannot be framed on account of unexplained cash credit, where assessee has recorded the sales in its books and there is no adverse finding qua stock and purchases: ITATFood scarcity: Gaza heading for mass deathsCX - Tax demands merits being quashed where based on oral statements but without permitting Assessee to cross examine the deponents & where also based on circumstantial statements: CESTATBJP decides to go with Chirag Paswan; trashes his uncle Pashupati Paras in BiharST - Being appellant a registered service provider and filing their Service Tax returns, demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from Income Tax Department: CESTATDubai Financial Centre frames rules to regulate digital assetsCus - Clearance of domestic household goods without proper clearance, does not warrant disproportionate penalty of Rs 50000/-, as the same is not a case of regular import by an IEC holder: CESTATCBDT directs income tax field offices to remain open on March 29, 30 & 31stCX - In so far as security services for their factory and trading premises was concerned, said services was directly connected with their business and hence, appellant was entitled for credit of service tax paid: CESTAT
 
CX - Merely on basis of statement given by one employee to police that raw materials worth Rs.2 crore were destroyed in fire, same cannot be taken as gospel truth: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 20, 2018: THIS is a Revenue appeal directed against an O-in-A passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II setting aside the O-in-A on the ground of limitation.

The facts are a fire broke out in respondent's factory on 22.03.2010 wherein certain raw material was destroyed. This was informed to the Police Department on 23.03.2010 by the respondent.

By their letter dated 09.04.2010, the respondent informed the Division office about the fire accident and that the fire had destroyed their machinery, inputs, partially processed inputs. A statement giving details of the goods destroyed in the fire was also submitted in which it was mentioned that the value of affected stock was Rs.4,93,995/- involving duty of Rs.51,631/- and the same was reversed on 13.04.2010.

It is the case of the department that before the Police Officer, the General Manager of the respondent had given a statement that raw material worth Rs.2crore were completely destroyed in the said fire. And, therefore, the respondent was liable to pay CE duty on the balance of Rs.1,95,06,005/- (Rs.2crores minus Rs.4,93,995) worth of the raw material that was destroyed.

SCN demanding duty of Rs.20,09,119/- culminated in to an adjudication order dated 24.11.2015.

Since the said order was set aside by the Commissioner(A), Revenue is aggrieved.

While reiterating the grounds of appeal, the AR submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in setting aside the demand on time bar. It is informed that the respondent had provided all the information relating to the damaged goods only on 13.03.2015 and, therefore, the show-cause notice issued on 20.03.2015 is within the limitation of time.

The respondent submitted that the letter dated 09.04.2010 was a detailed one and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any suppression.

The Bench adverted to this letter dated 09.04.2010 after reproducing a scanned copy the same observed thus –

++ From the above letter it can be seen that the respondent have given the details for damages, this communication was sufficient for the Revenue to investigate if they deemed fit to find out whether there is some more damages of inputs or other goods. However the Revenue has not taken any step to make any enquiry.

++ It is also noted that the respondent have not filed any claim for remission of duty, in that case, it was not obligatory on the part of the respondent to apply with the provision of remission of the duty.

++ It is noticed that after submission of the letter dated 09.04.2010 the Revenue started investigation only when the issue was raised in the Audit. In my view Revenue was not at all prevented from taking up any investigation immediately after receipt of the letter dated 09.04.2010.

++ In this fact, I do not find any suppression of fact on the part of the respondent. It is also fact on record that the respondent have not claimed any insurance claim which further shows that there is no actual damage of the raw material worth Rs. 2 crore. Merely on the basis of statement given by one of the employee of the respondent to the police the same cannot be taken as gospel truth regarding the actual quantum of damage.

++ The show-cause notice was issued almost after 5 years, therefore, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the respondent.

Concluding that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly set aside the demand on limitation, the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-598-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023