Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2512

Whether Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand?

Case:-  COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN VS CHAMAN LAL BHAMBRI
 
Citation:-2015-TIOL-140-CESTAT-MAD

Brief facts:- The appeals relate to import of Second-Hand Off-set Printing Machine by M/s. Man Bhavan Arts vide Bill of Entry No.329181, dated 13.09.2003. The Adjudicating authority rejected the declared value and enhanced value and confirmed the demand of differential duty along with interest and imposed penalty on M/s. Man Bhavan Arts. He also imposed penalties on Shri Chaman Lal Bhambri and Shri Rajindar Jain on the ground that they are co-conspirator and well aware of undervaluation of goods. All the notices filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). By Order-in-Appeal No.38/2010, dated 16.09.2010 and Order-in-Appeal No.50/2010, dated 12.10.2010 in the appeal of M/s. Man Bhavan Arts and Shri Rajindar Jain respectively, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority to grant a fresh personal hearing after returning the ineligible documents and supplying legible copies of the relied upon documents and to give them proper opportunity to file their final reply and decide the case afresh as per law. Revenue filed the appeals before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of M/s. Man Bhavan Arts and Shri Rajindar Jain. But, in the appeal of Shri Chaman Lal Bhambri, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the Adjudication Order against which the present appeal is filed. All the three appeals were filed against three separate impugned orders of Commissioner (Appeals), and all are arising out of a common Adjudication Order No.12/2010, dated 30.03.2010. Hence, all are taken up together for hearing.
 
Appellant’s contentions:-The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. She submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter.
 
 
Reasoning of judgment:- After hearing the contention of the appellant i.e. revenue they find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court and the Tribunal by various decisions held that the Appellate Authority have powers to pass such order as it may deem fit and proper confirming, modifying or annulling the decision appealed against. Such power would extend assessment, waiving or remission against the other under appeal. The CESTAT also place some references of the cases as under:
 
(i) Union of India Vs Umesh Dhaimode reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T.584 (S.C.) = 2002-TIOL-415-SC-CUS.
 
(ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I Vs Medico Labs reported in 2004 (173) E.L.T.117 (Guj.) = 2004-TIOL-39-HC-AHM-CX.
 
(iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs Amaravathy Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2010 (252) E.L.T. 228 (Tri.-Chennai) .
 
(iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II Vs Honda Seil Power Product Ltd. reported in 2013 (287) E.L.T.353 (Tri.-Del.) = 2012-TIOL-2052-CESTAT-DEL.
 
(v) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I Vs Vikram Dhawan reported in 2012 (284) E.L.T. 554 (Tri.-Del.) .
 
Hence they do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against which appeals filed by the Revenue. As the Commissioner (Appeals) by the earlier Order-in-Appeal set aside the Adjudication order and, therefore, the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) against Shri Chaman Lal Bhambri cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal against which the appeal filed by Shri Chaman Lal Bhambri is liable to be set aside and remanded to the Adjudicating authority.
 
In view of the above discussions, they dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. The appeal filed by Chaman Lal Bhambri is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority. As the matter relates to 2003 imports, they also directed the Adjudicating authority to decide these matters as early as possible following the direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of M/s. Man Bhavan Arts and Shri Rajindar Jain. Stay application filed by Shri Chaman Lal Bhambri was also disposed of.
 
Decision:- Appeals allowed by way of remand.

Comment:-The crux of the case is that Commissioners(Appeals) as an appellate Authority have  the powers to pass such order as it may deem fit and proper confirming, modifying or annulling the decision appealed against the orders of adjudication authority. Such power would definitely include the power of remand and the same is also backed by number of decisions given by the Tribunal.

Prepared by:- Kushal Shah

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com