Commissioner Wrongly Revives Settled Demands: CESTAT Sets Aside Order, Restricts Re-Adjudication to Normal Period [Read Order]

The Chennai Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) set aside the Commissioner's order for wrongly reviving settled demands and restricted the scope of re-adjudication to the normal period.

Mukesh Associates,appellant-assessee,received a Show Cause Notice on 18.04.2007, proposing ₹1,38,95,688 in tax, penalties, and interest. The Commissioner confirmed the demands in an Order-in-Original on 12.12.2007. The assessee appealed to the tribunal, which, on 17.04.2008, set aside the demands and the order, asking the Commissioner to issue a new decision.

Clear all Your Doubts on RCM, TCS, GTA, OIDAR, SEZ, ISD Etc... Click Here

The Commissioner reviewed the assessee's explanation in the de-novo proceedings. In OIO No. 10/2008 dated 22.12.2008, the Commissioner reduced most of the original demands but confirmed the interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76. The assessee appealed again. The Tribunal, in Final Order No. 41741-41742/2017 dated 16.08.2017, sent the case back for reconsideration.

The Commissioner then examined all issues and, after reviewing documents, confirmed the full demand initially proposed in the SCN dated 18.04.2007 in OIO No. 13/2021-ST (Commr.) (Denovo) dated 26.06.2021.

Read More: Unjustified Procedural Delays by Authorities: CESTAT sets aside Customs Broker License Revocation Order

The two member bench comprising P.Dinesha(Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao(Technical Member) reviewed the Appeal records and heard both parties. The main issue was whether the impugned order was legally valid.

It was confirmed that the Revenue did not appeal the Original Authority's order from 22.12.2008, so they had no issue with dropping the demand. Only the assessee filed an appeal, and the tribunal set aside the Commissioner’s order in Final Order No. 41741-41742/2017.

Tax Planning For NRIs Click here

The appellate tribunal ruled that the scope of the appeal could not go beyond the appellant's grievance. Since the Revenue did not appeal, they could not misuse the remand order. It found that the Original Authority had misinterpreted the remand order, so it set aside the impugned order to the extent of the relief granted in the 22.12.2008 order.

The CESTAT noted that the assessee did not cooperate by submitting required details. It therefore set aside the impugned order and directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass a de-novo order limited to the normal period. The assessee was instructed to cooperate and provide the necessary documents. The tribunal ordered the de-novo decision to be made within 45 days.

In short,the appeal filed was disposed of.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates