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>Tribunal Erred in Appeal Dismissal, High Court Orders Comprehensive Review of Penalty Issue</h1> <h3>Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Surat-I Versus Riddhi Siddhi Processors</h3> Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Surat-I Versus Riddhi Siddhi Processors - 2017 (353) E.L.T. 151 (Guj.) Issues:1. Whether the extended period of limitation could have been invoked by the DepartmentRs.2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was in accordance with the law and evidenceRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal was filed by the revenue against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue to enhance the penalty amount. The Tribunal based its decision on the judgment in a similar case where the extended period of limitation was set aside. However, it was noted that the respondent assessee did not challenge the Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. As the proceedings before the adjudicating authority were still pending, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the appeal based on the merits of the demand of Cenvat credit. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the pending proceedings and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a comprehensive review, including the issue of penalty.Issue 2:The High Court found that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was not sustainable due to the pending adjudication proceedings concerning the respondent assessee. The Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for a holistic consideration of the penalty issue along with the ongoing adjudication proceedings. The Court partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the penalty issue in conjunction with the pending adjudication process. No costs were awarded in the matter.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues raised by the revenue regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the adequacy of the Tribunal's order. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the pending adjudication proceedings in determining the penalty amount, leading to the partial success of the appeal and the remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for further review.
TaxTMI 