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>Court overturns CESTAT's decision, emphasizes document review, remands for fresh adjudication.</h1> <h3>M/s. Anurag Alloys & Die Cast (P) Limited and M/s. Jagdamba Metal Store Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad</h3> M/s. Anurag Alloys & Die Cast (P) Limited and M/s. Jagdamba Metal Store Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad - 2023 (383) E.L.T. 405 (P & H) Issues:1. Quashing of final order upholding duty demand and penalty.2. Allegations of availing Cenvat credit without actual goods delivery.3. Appellant's defense of receiving and clearing goods with duty payment.4. Comparison with a similar case and shift of onus in fraud allegations.5. Remand for fresh adjudication by CESTAT.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking to set aside a final order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which upheld the demand of duty and levy of 100% penalty on the appellant. 2. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aluminum ingots and die castings, availed Cenvat credit on inputs purchased from first and second stage dealers. An investigation alleged that the dealers passed credit without actual goods delivery, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority.3. The appellant contended that they received and cleared goods after payment of duty, duly reported in RG-1 register and reflected in statutory returns. The court noted a similar case where the onus shifts to the assessee to prove transaction genuineness if fraud allegations are prima facie proven by the department.4. Referring to the above case, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the CESTAT's order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after examining all relevant documents and returns filed by the appellant. The court emphasized the need to consider the entire material before reaching a conclusion on the allegations.5. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders of CEA No. 65 and 66 of 2014 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration based on the observations made. The court clarified that all submissions from both parties remain open, and CESTAT, New Delhi, will inform the parties about the new hearing date. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
