9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar & Co Pvt Ltd [2014 (5) TMI 986 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where on similar issue it was held that the Deputy Commissioner has illegally invoked the provisions of Section 73(1)(a) of the Act and exercised the power to raise the demand under Section 73(1)(a) of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/339/2006-SM, ST/378/2008-SM - Final Order No. A/31481-31482/ 2017 - Dated:- 13-9-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) Mr. P Rama Krishna, Adv for the Appellant Mr. Arun Kumar, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per M. V. Ravindran ] These two appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No. 4 5/2006 (H-II)ST dated 31.07.2006. Appeal No. ST 339/2006 is filed by Link International T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is undisputed that the show-cause notice is issued on 9.10.2002 demanding differential duty calculated based upon various monthly returns filed by the main appellant. I find that the submissions made by the learned counsel before the lower authorities that the monthly returns which were filed were finally assessed is not addressed to in its entirety by the lower authorities. I also find that 1st Appellate Authority has not recorded any findings on the question of invocation of Section 73 for demanding of differential duty by invoking extended period of limitation and how the same has been addressed by the adjudicating authority. In my view, during the period in question, provisions of Section 73(1) have specifically recorded that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d truly all material facts. Omission or Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, is a pre-requisite to invoke Section 73(1)(a). 47. From perusal of the show cause notice, it is apparent that the material already available on record has been referred to infer that there is escaped assessment. No case has been made out that primary facts, relating to transactions, had not been disclosed by the appellant and there was omission or failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 48. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner failed to make out any case that he had the material to believe that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
