Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex Vs Rayan Pharma Ltd (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Appeal Number : C.E.A. No. 15 of 2006
Date of Judgement/Order : 29/07/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In the present case it appears that the Commissioner has assumed that in respect of all the clearances, the appellant has collected Excise Duty. If the department makes the allegation that the appellant had collected money representing Excise Duty, then the burden is on the Revenue to prove the same.  As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the entire burden of proving that the respondent-assessee has collected money representing excise duty rests on the Revenue, but the order-in-original does not disclose that the Department has discharged the burden of proof, as such, the Tribunal was right in remanding the matter to the original authority to reconsider and decide the case on merits.

Further, it is to be noticed that during the pendency of this appeal, the respondent-assessee is said to have paid certain amounts which fact is not denied by the Department. Further, in the Order-in-Original itself, the Commissioner had recorded that there is no direct evidence available on record except that certain sale invoices were raised against M/s.A.P.H.M.H.I.D.C. and certain amounts were shown as excise duty. That apart, so far as the invoices raised against M/s.A.P.H.M.H.I.D.C. are concerned, the respondent-assessee paid a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs and Rs.4.50 lakhs vide their branch Challan Nos.04/2003-04 and 05/2003-04 dated 11.02.2004 through State Bank of India and this fact has not been controverted by the Department. Also, the Department has not placed before us any other material to take a contra view. It is well-settled that the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and the High Court is required to accept the findings recorded by the Tribunal except where there is a specific challenge to the findings raising any questions of perversity supported by relevant material.

On the above analysis, we see no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed the Tribunal.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH & HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031