TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms CESTAT decision on excise duty burden of proof, supports remand for fresh decision</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Versus M/s. Rayan Pharma Limited.</h3> Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Versus M/s. Rayan Pharma Limited. - 2015 (328) E.L.T. 6 (A. P.) Issues:1. Setting aside of Order-in-Original by CESTAT2. Burden of proof on Revenue for collection of Excise Duty3. Consideration of evidence by CESTAT4. Granting relief to appellant withholding commercial invoices5. Remanding the matter when facts admitted by appellantIssue 1: Setting aside of Order-in-Original by CESTATThe Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was filed by the Department against the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The questions raised for adjudication included whether CESTAT was correct in setting aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, considering the failure of the party to deposit amounts representing the duty of Excise to the Central Government, as required by Section 11D of the Act.Issue 2: Burden of proof on Revenue for collection of Excise DutyAnother issue raised was whether CESTAT was right in placing the burden of proving the collection of amounts representing the duty of Excise from customers on the Revenue, especially when certain commercial invoices were intentionally not produced by the party. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Department alleges that the party collected money representing Excise Duty, the burden of proof lies with the Revenue.Issue 3: Consideration of evidence by CESTATCESTAT was also questioned on not considering clear evidence that the party had collected Central Excise duty from a specific buyer, and whether the party was obligated to prove that other buyers were not billed similarly. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision after observing principles of natural justice was challenged.Issue 4: Granting relief to appellant withholding commercial invoicesThe justification of CESTAT in granting relief to the appellant, who intentionally withheld commercial invoices of other customers, was also a subject of contention. The appellant's intentional withholding of commercial invoices raised concerns about the propriety of granting relief in such circumstances.Issue 5: Remanding the matter when facts admitted by appellantLastly, the decision of CESTAT to remand the matter to the original authority despite the appellant admitting the facts mentioned in the Show Cause Notice was questioned. The remand order was challenged in light of the admitted facts, questioning the necessity of further proceedings.In the detailed analysis, the High Court observed that the burden of proving the collection of money representing excise duty rested on the Revenue, and the Tribunal rightly remanded the matter for a fresh decision due to the lack of proof by the Department. The Court noted that the respondent-assessee had paid certain amounts during the appeal, and the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough review of the evidence presented by both parties. The Court emphasized the Tribunal's role as the final fact-finding authority and upheld its findings unless challenged with specific evidence of perversity. Ultimately, the appeal was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed, with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 