Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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