Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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