Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (7) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs recorded by CESTAT summarized hereinbefore would go to indicate that the case put forth by the assessee is a plausible case and in the circumstances, in absence of any corroborative evidence brought on record by revenue, the findings recorded by CESTAT do not call for any interference. Thus none of the questions, as proposed in each of the tax appeals or otherwise, can be termed to be substantial questions of law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. - 1727 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2008 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. [Judgment per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)]. - All these appeals have been heard together as they emanate from a common order made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 2.In Tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cture of dye intermediates. Respondents of Tax Appeal Nos. 1729 of 2007 and 1730 of 2007 are connected with the respondent-firm herein while respondents of Tax Appeal Nos. 1726 of 2007 and 1728 of 2007 are persons who are registered dealers namely Directors of one M/s. Bhimani Chemicals Private Limited, the supplier of certain inputs like LAB and Soda Ash. Respondent-firm claimed Cenvat credit in relation to the aforesaid inputs on the basis of the said inputs being duty paid. The adjudicating authority found that the inputs had not been received by respondent unit and hence after issuing show cause notice, confirmed the demand holding that respondent-unit was not entitled to the Cenvat credit claimed. For this purpose, reliance has been pl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalties and confiscation of goods are concerned, no findings were recorded by Member (Technical) in relation to some of the items while they stood deleted by Member (Judicial). 5.The matter was carried before the Third Member of the Tribunal namely President of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded the following findings. 1. There can be no dispute qua the proposition that admitted facts need not be proved and a confession would bind the person making the confession. 2. Ordinarily, confession by partner of a firm and its employees would bind the assessee, but such statement would not bind the co-noticees without corroboration. 3. Though, admissions are binding on the person making the admission, if the said admission is retracte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The books of account of the registered dealer established receipt of payment by cheques. 13. The cross-examination of the Superintendent of Excise Department established that no cross verification was carried out by revenue in relation to the movement of funds after the same were received by cheques. 14. The Directors of the dealer had confirmed having received payment by cheques. 15. All inputs were duly entered in RG-23 register maintained by the assessee. 16. There was no co-relation attempted nor established to show that the inputs in question were not utilized for manufacturing 20 different kinds of final products manufactured by the assessee. 17. To the contrary, at least 7 products manufactured by the assessee were produce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rded by the adjudicating authority and read extensively from the adjudication order to contend that CESTAT had committed an error in law by not appreciating the facts in correct perspective. 8.As can be seen from the impugned order of CESTAT and the adjudication order, it is a question of appreciating the same set of facts and evidence available on record. The findings recorded by CESTAT summarized hereinbefore would go to indicate that the case put forth by the assessee is a plausible case and in the circumstances, in absence of any corroborative evidence brought on record by revenue, the findings recorded by CESTAT do not call for any interference. 9.In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, none of the questions, a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates