TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Authority violated natural justice by directing fresh investigation after show cause notice in Cenvat credit reversal case</h1> CESTAT Kolkata set aside the adjudication order in a Cenvat credit reversal case involving extended limitation period. The tribunal found that the ... Reversal of Cenvat Credit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority has not given bifurcation of the items specifically on which the demand has been confirmed - HELD THAT:- The first SCN was issued on 05.05.2011 and second SCN was issued on 30.01.2011. He has clearly noted that the Show Cause Notices have not brought in any evidence to rely upon their allegations. After this, he has gone on to direct the officers of Headquarters Anti Evasion Unit to do the necessary verification and submit their findings which was done by them between 06.03.2013 to 07.03.2013. There is no legal sanctity to undertake such an exercise after the Show Cause Notice was issued. Once the Show Cause Notice is issued and reply is filed by the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority is required to consider the allegations vis-à-vis the replies filed by the Appellant and come to a conclusion. He cannot step into the shoe of the investigating authority and undertake a fresh investigation. In this case his undertaking of such an exercise has vitiated the entire adjudication process since the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The observation of the Adjudicating authority clarifies that the goods in question have been used by the Appellant in their manufacturing process. Therefore, even on this count, the Appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues:1. Demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit on various items2. Invocation of extended period provisions3. Confirmation of demand by Adjudicating Authority4. Legal precedents cited by the Appellant5. Department's justification for confirmed demand6. Verification process conducted by Adjudicating Authority7. Adjudicating Authority's reliance on Chartered Engineer certificate8. Lack of evidence in Show Cause Notices9. Adjudicating Authority's fresh investigation10. Compliance with principles of natural justiceAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA dealt with a case where the Appellant was issued Show Cause Notices demanding reversal of Cenvat Credit on various items, including angles, channels, beams, TMT bars, welding electrodes, and cement. The Notices were issued invoking extended period provisions due to a Larger Bench decision. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a portion of the demand, which the Appellant contested. The Appellant cited legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing the allowance of Cenvat Credit in similar instances. The Department, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the Adjudicating Authority's findings, justifying the confirmed demand based on factual details and a Chartered Engineer's certificate.The Appellant's counsel argued that the Adjudicating Authority erred in relying on a certificate issued by a Chartered Engineer appointed by the Department, highlighting the lack of bifurcation of confirmed items and questioning the verification process. The Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notices lacked specific evidence and that the Adjudicating Authority's post-Notice verification was irregular. The Tribunal emphasized that after issuing a Show Cause Notice, the Authority should consider responses and not conduct fresh investigations. The Tribunal found this procedural error violated natural justice principles, leading to the setting aside of the Adjudicating Authority's order.Furthermore, the Tribunal found in favor of the Appellant based on legal precedents and the Adjudicating Authority's own observations indicating the usage of goods in the manufacturing process. Consequently, the Appeals were allowed, providing consequential relief as per the law. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and established legal principles in adjudicating such matters, ensuring a fair and just resolution for the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
