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 Remands Appeal for Re-adjudication Emphasizing Natural Justice Principles</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE-JAIPUR Versus M/s GEE DIAMOND STEEL P LTD.</h3> PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE-JAIPUR Versus M/s GEE DIAMOND STEEL P LTD. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the appeal.2. Merits of the matter regarding inadmissible CENVAT credit.3. Violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination.4. Time-barred demand and liability of manufacturers and suppliers.Summary:1. Maintainability of the Appeal:The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the review order was signed separately by the two members of the Committee of Commissioners, which is against Section 35B(2) of the CEA. However, the Tribunal rejected this objection, citing the decision of the Larger Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Japan Airlines [2015(7) TMI 824], which held that the decision rendered by the Committee of Commissioners is an administrative function and does not require a meeting or consultation.2. Merits of the Matter:The case involved an investigation by the DGCEI revealing that certain manufacturers and dealers were non-existent and were issuing fake invoices to pass on CENVAT credit. The adjudicating authority found that the assessee company availed inadmissible CENVAT credit fraudulently. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, which was challenged by the revenue in the present appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the credit based on fake invoices and relied on the statements of the Director and General Manager of the assessee company, who admitted to availing the credit wrongly.3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The respondent contended that the adjudicating authority violated the principles of natural justice by not granting the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon. The Tribunal agreed, citing Section 9D of the Central Excise Act and various judgments, including Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE, Kolkata [2015(324) ELT 641], which held that denial of cross-examination is a serious flaw. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to grant the necessary opportunity for cross-examination.4. Time-Barred Demand and Liability:The respondent raised cross-objections, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the issue of the demand being time-barred and that if no fraud was found, the demand should be against the manufacturers and suppliers. The Tribunal did not record any findings on these issues and left them open for the original authority to address upon remand.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for re-adjudication, ensuring compliance with Section 9D of the CEA and allowing cross-examination of witnesses. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant was dismissed as infructuous. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand without expressing any opinion on the factual matrix of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
