9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eguard the interest of the revenue. Access to the premises is a lesser power than the power to search the premises as granted under Section 82 of the Act of 1994. Sub-rule (1), therefore, cannot be construed to mean that, it is in excess of the parent power of searching the premises as granted under Section 82 of the Act of 1994 - decided against petitioner. Are the proceedings taken by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner required to be quashed being in excess of the powers? - Held that: - An enquiry is under process with regard to the alleged procurement of CENVAT credit fraudulently. The enquiry is yet to be completed. The enquiry relates to the business of the first petitioner. The first petitioner ought to participate in such enquiry. The modus operandi stated in the affidavit of the respondent no. 2 with regard to the obtaining of CENVAT credit by a insurance company is such that, the petitioner who is engaged in the business of insurance and is suspected to have indulged in such wrongful practices is required to be examined so also officers of the petitioner involved in the transactions - In such circumstances, I am not in a position to say that, the proceedings ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Intelligence. He has referred to the writing dated July 17, 2015 issued by the officers of the respondent no. 2 and has submitted that, although the officers of the respondent no. 2 were present at the premises of the petitioner at Kolkata, none the less, such officers had required the petitioner to present documents at the Chennai office of the respondent no. 2 at 15:00 hours on the same day. He has submitted that, the action of the officers from the Chennai office of the respondent no. 2 is wholly without jurisdiction as, the petitioner is assessed at Kolkata and that, the Kolkata office has jurisdiction over the premises of the petitioner as well as the petitioner. He has submitted that, the officers of the respondent no. 2 had continued with the illegal action despite the protest in writing by the petitioner. He has referred to the affidavit-inopposition of the respondent no. 2 and has submitted that, there are contradictions between the affidavit used on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 1. He has referred to the Master circular dated March 10, 2017 and has submitted that, the authorities have acted beyond the provisions of such Master circul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Such Summons were issued from the camp at Kolkata. The Summons were duly received by the petitioner. The officers of the respondent no. 2 has jurisdiction on all India basis in terms of the notification dated June 26, 2001. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that, the officers of the respondent no. 2 were acting without jurisdiction while visiting the premises of the petitioner on July 17, 2015. The Chief Finance Officer of the petitioner had given a statement on July 17, 2015. The petitioner had provided documents under cover of its various letters. In course of the investigation, some of the dealers had admitted in their statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that, no service of any nature was actually provided by them to the petitioner, though such dealers have raised invoices mentioning rendering of certain services. According to such dealers, they had prepared the invoices based on formats of invoices sent by Electronic Mail by the petitioner for claiming the payouts. Since the details provided by the Chief Finance Officer of the petitioner in his statement dated July 17, 2015 was at variance with the doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994, the Central Government had framed the rules called the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as initially framed, had received the consideration of the Delhi High Court in 2014 Supreme Court Cases Online Del page 3943 (Travelite (India) v. Union of India Ors.). The Delhi High Court had held that, sub-rule (2) of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 is ultra vires the rule making power conferred under Section 94(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such rule was struck down. A different version of sub-rule (2) was introduced subsequent to the decision of Travelite (India) (supra). The amended sub-rule (2) had received the consideration of the Delhi High Court in Mega Cabs Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Delhi High Court had found the amended sub-rule (2) to be ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994. The Court has been informed that, appeals against Travelite (India) (supra) and Mega Cabs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 after amendment requires every assessee to make available to the officer empowered under sub-rule (1) or the audit party deputed by the Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses of the petitioner on July 17, 2015. The entry was made on the basis of the Summons dated July 17, 2015 issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 gives powers to a Central Excise Officer to Summon any person whose attendance, the officer considers necessary, either to give evidence, or to produce a document, or any other thing, in any inquiry, which such officer is making for any of the purposes of the Act. The Summons were acknowledged by the Chief Finance Officer of the petitioner. Such Chief Finance Officer of the petitioner had made a statement which was found to be evasive. The documents required for investigation were obtained under a letter dated July 15, 2005 of the petitioner. The petitioner had produced certain documents/details by the letters dated July 29, 2015, July 31, 2015, November 10, 2015, April 7, 2016 and May 31, 2016. The statements of the Chief Finance Officer of the petitioner dated July 17, 2015 were found to be at variance with the documents/details provided by the dealers during the course of investigation. Such person was issued with the Summons dated June 8, 2016 for appearance before the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
