2011 (4) TMI 1485 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Whether the CESTAT was correct in ordering to fix the separate/individual liability of the seven persons involved in perpetuating fraud and causing revenue loss.
2. Whether the CESTAT was correct in ordering denovo proceedings due to alleged irregularities in the claimed rebate and failure to supply demanded documents.

Issue 1:
The Hon'ble CESTAT was questioned on the correctness of ordering separate liability for the seven individuals involved in the fraudulent rebate claim. The law distinguishes between levy and collection of duty, with the former arising initially under the Central Excise Act. As the acts of the seven individuals were intertwined in defrauding the revenue, determining individual liability was deemed challenging. The CESTAT was asked to consider the joint and several liability of the wrongdoers, emphasizing that fraud and forgery vitiate everything, making all perpetrators jointly and severally liable for the damage caused.

Issue 2:
The appropriateness of the CESTAT's decision to order denovo proceedings was questioned based on the alleged failure to supply requested documents. The Adjudicating Authority had ordered the recovery of the fraudulently claimed rebate amount, interest, and penalties. The CESTAT remanded the proceedings to the Adjudicating Officer to determine liability and penalty separately for each individual involved. The Tribunal emphasized the need for supplying relied-upon documents and ensuring the respondents had a fair opportunity to present their case before a final decision was made.

The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration regarding individual liability and the necessity of supplying relied-upon documents was upheld. The Tribunal's directive for the revenue to provide the necessary documents and allow the respondents a fair chance to present their case was deemed essential to uphold principles of natural justice. The dismissal of all Tax Appeals was based on the similarity of facts with previous orders, leading to the conclusion that the appeals lacked merit and were therefore dismissed.