Mittal International Vs CCE (CESTAT Chandigarh) Refund claim was denied on the ground that the said goods have been exported and drawback is allowed on the export of goods. The case of the Revenue is that as the appellants have claimed drawback on export of the goods, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim […]
Section 14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 does not confer a power upon the appellate authority to pass an order more burdensome than the order appealed against. It does not entitle the appellate authority to enhance the penalty.
It is equally settled that circumstantial evidence in the nature of extra judicial confession is always considered to be a weak type of evidence, therefore, conviction on such evidence can form basis if it passes the test of credibility and the Court is fully convinced that the extra judicial confession is made voluntary in fit state of mind without being any coercion or duress.
The short question which falls for decision in this case is whether a judgment and order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and an order of compensation imposed under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a direction to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of such compensation is appealable or not.
It appears a little strange that when the assessee either himself or through his authorized representative is not attending the hearing to argue the case, still the Tribunal has to decide the appeal on merits.
It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department.
HC held that The mere fact that petitioner’s work, which commenced in previous year, had been compounded for that year would not require continuance under the scheme in subsequent year, for reason of there being no provision available requiring such a continuance.
It clearly shows that State VAT department has literally plundered most of the assets of a company without any legal justification. Now, these commercial tax officials would also be part of GST machinery.
In view of the above observations, the view taken by the First Appellate Authority, that deposit under Section 35F (i) cannot be made from CENVAT Credit Account, is not the correct appreciation of law so long as the CENVAT Credit is permissible for utilisation as per Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit. All issues are kept open. Appellant be granted adequate opportunity of hearing to present their case. Both sides are at liberty to produce evidences in their favour.
HC held that that it was inappropriate and illegal on the part of Director General, Income Tax (Exemptions) not to take a decision on Assessee’s application filed for seeking approval as required under Section 80IB(7)(c).
