9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation period is justifiable under any one of the circumstances covered by Section 73 of the Act. Alternatively, whether the period of five-year limitation is attracted to the case or not. Upon due verification of record, and the scope of appeal, we are constrained to record that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the inapplicability of extended period of limitation for the show cause notice dated 22.10.2005 does not warrant our interference and the grounds raised in this behalf do not merit consideration. Because the genesis for issuing show-cause notice for extended period of limitation is from the very material on record before the authority - The appellant since unable to attack a crucial finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, necessarily must fail in the challenge against the order impugned in the appeal. The other argument is ancillary and it is stated the limited remand in the circumstances of the case is also erroneous. The order of remand under appeal does not warrant our interference - Appeal dismissed. - CEA Nos. 35 & 36/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2022 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI And THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FOR THE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in remanding the case to the Original Adjudicating Authority to re-determine the Service Tax due within period of limitation, when the respondent withheld the information from the department by not correctly filing the required periodic returns and especially when the departmental officers were barred from routinely going to the premises of the respondent for checking their accounts? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding no suppression, terming the entire operations of the respondent as complex and spread over different parts of the country, when Service tax laws provide clear and distinguishable procedures for maintaining accounts and filing periodic returns? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire demand made in the Show Cause Notice was based on the details found in the books of accounts maintained by the respondent and no specific grounds had been made regarding the suppression of facts, when the respondent did not disclose the information will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Appeals by vacating the orders of the Tribunals and restore the appeals back to the files of the Tribunal with direction to them to repost the appeals, hear the matter on all issues raised as if those are first appeals filed for the first time and decide the matter without being influenced by their findings in the first round of appeals, which at the maximum amounts to observations or restatement of the arguments of the parties. The Tribunal should address all the issues raised against fresh adjudication orders issued after remand. There will be direction to the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the appeals within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant is free to produce whatever is the evidence or records required and is also free to collect information from other collectorates and furnish the same so that there is no duplicity of assessment for the same service under 2 collectorates. The Tribunal upon remand by this Court, concluded the issue as follows: 7. Assessee has pleaded that substantial part of the demand will be hit by limitation. The show-cause notice for the period 2000-01 to 2004-05 has been issued on 22.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t view taken by this Court and also the direction issued in C.E.A No.16 and 17 of 2010. It is urged that the Tribunal was called upon by this Court in the said judgment to examine all issues and record a finding thereon. Therefore, the remand per se is illegal. It is also argued that the findings recorded on the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Act, are perverse, unavailable and the case on hand, squarely falls within Section 73 of the Act, where the extended period of limitation could be available. The remand has a limited scope, and the order is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara contends that the understanding of the judgment dated 26.03.2012 of this Court by the appellant is erroneous. This Court vide judgment dated 26.03.2012 found fault with a few findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 26.09.2009 and remitted the matter. The Tribunal has appreciated the case and recorded findings available in this behalf which are within its jurisdiction. 7.1 Replying to the argument on Section 73 of the Act, he argues that the case on hand does not attract any of the contingencies contemplated by Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation is from the very material on record before the authority. As rightly argued by Mr. Joseph Kodianthara, neither fraud can be stated nor suppression/misrepresentation against the assessee. To add another reason for the above, let us take a situation, where the genesis for issuing the show cause notice under extended period of limitation on account of material recovered or information received by the Department then the consideration of the applicability of extended period of limitation is on different inputs. The appellant since unable to attack a crucial finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, necessarily must fail in the challenge against the order impugned in the appeal. The other argument is ancillary and it is stated the limited remand in the circumstances of the case is also erroneous. Definitely, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to direct open remand or remand after recording a few findings on the issues it had dealt with in a case. What begs the question is whether limited remand now ordered by the Tribunal warrants our interference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The appellant except raising a few grounds fails to convince this Court to substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
