9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication in the case of C.G. ST C & C. E-ALWAR Versus KAMDHENU ISPAT LTD and Kamdhenu Ispat Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Jaipur-I [2018 (5) TMI 905 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Since the findings of the Commissioner in the above proceedings will have a direct bearing on the present case, also we are of the view that the present matter also needs to be remanded with similar directions, since the demand of service tax is entirely based on the GEQD report. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 57711/2013 (DB) - Final Order No. 51908/2018 - Dated:- 17-5-2018 - Hon ble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Hon ble Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Shri A.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department came to the conclusion that during the period 1.4.2008 to 8.10.2008, the appellant had received towards Royalty, an amount of about ₹ 14.32 crores. It was further concluded that only an amount of ₹ 4.28 crores was declared by the appellant in the ST-3 returns for the same period, as taxable value. After conclusion of investigation, SCN was issued demanding Service Tax as below:- Sl.No. Para of SCN ST demand (in Rs.) Ground for Demand Period 1. 10(i) 1,24,04,149 Royalty-Difference between GEQD report and ST-3 returns 01.04.2008 to 08.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w:- (i) Ld. Advocate submitted that the entire case of the Revenue is made out from the data, recovered from 3 CPUs, 3 laptops and 2 pen drives recovered during such proceedings on 12.11.2008. He drew our attention to two panchnamas both dated 12.11.2008 and argued that the panchnamas were inconsistent, hence, the validity of recovery of the devices is questionable. He submitted that print out of the data recovered by GEQD from the electronic devices have been made available to the appellant but he highlighted that copies of such documents raise doubt about the authenticity of such documents. He submitted that print outs only have the seal of the GEQD but no signature. It is also not evident which portion of the data has been printed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant will be entitled to cum-tax benefit, which has been denied by the Adjudicating Authority. (vi) Finally, he submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. (vii) He also relied on various case laws. 8. Ld. DR justified the impugned order. It is his submission that the data print out by GEQD is admissible. The authenticity of such print out cannot be questioned, since each and every page of the print out bears the round seal of the Government Agency. He also argued that the impugned order merits to be upheld since the evidence on record supports the allegation of suppression. It is also not always possible to establish the cases of evasion with mathematical precision. 9. Heard both sides and perused the volumino ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the voluminous records, we note that the entire case has been made on the basis of the data retrieved from the laptops, CPUs, pen drives seized from the secret office in Gurgaon. The data was retrieved by the GEQD, Hyderabad. The data was submitted along with detailed report dated 25.02.2009 by the GEQD. The Adjudicating Authority has doubted the veracity of the retrieved data. He has come to the conclusion that these Laptops other devices were possibly manipulated in the office of the investigating agency i.e. DGCEI, the investigating agency. During the course of arguments, the ld. DR has drawn our attention to the detailed report dated 25.02.2009 received from GEQD. He has highlighted from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
