9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Board circular No. 170/5/2013-ST dated 8/8/2013 and No. 174/9/2013-ST dated 25/11/2013 clarified the same issue - From the above clarification, it is clear that if the information is sought of roving nature even though communication regarding seeking information quoted Section 14 which shall not attract provisions of Section 106(2)(a). The cases of the appellants are squarely covered under the above clarification - Board Circular binding on the departmental officers. - The Ld. Adjudicating authority should have accepted the declaration filed by the appellants - VCES declaration cannot be rejected - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned that the information is called for under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that inquiry initiated by the DGCEI is of roving nature as general inquiry was made from various other assessees also. Therefore even though the Section 14 was quoted in the letter it cannot be said that the inquiry is in the nature which falls under the exclusion category of inquiry as provided under Section 106(2). In support of his submission he relied upon the Board Circular No. 170/5/2013-ST dated 8/8/2013 wherein at Sr. No. 1 issue was clarified that communication for seeking information of roving nature even though the communication has quoted authority of Section 14 it would not attract the provisions of Section 106(2)(a). He sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sking for some information and documents related to their taxable activity. In the said letter it was mentioned that information is called for under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the said letters are reproduce below: [IMAGES NOT PRODUCED] It can be seen that same inquiry was made from various assessee of roving nature. The Board circular No. 170/5/2013-ST dated 8/8/2013 and No. 174/9/2013-ST dated 25/11/2013 clarified the same issue as under: S No. Issues Clarification 1 Whether the communications, wherein department has sought information of roving nature from potential taxpayer regarding their business activities without seeking any documents from such person or calling for his presence, while quoting the authority of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 14 which shall not attract provisions of Section 106(2)(a). The cases of the appellants are squarely covered under the above clarification. It is settle position by the Hon'ble Courts in the various judgment with Board Circular binding on the departmental officers. (i) Ranadey Micronutrients Vs. Collector [1996 (87) ELT 19 (S.C.)] = 2002-TIOL-184-SC-CX (ii) Commissioner of C. Ex. Bhavnagar Vs. Ultratech Cement Pvt. Ltd [2014 (302) ELT 334 (Guj)] (iii) Union of India Vs. Arviva Industries Ltd. [2007 (209) ELT 5 (S.C.)] = 2007-TIOL-12-SC-CX In view of the above judgments, The Ld. Adjudicating authority should have accepted the declaration filed by the appellants. As regard the judgments of Sadguru Construction Co & 1 (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
