Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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