In a recent ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) remanded Rs. 1.18 Cr Excise Order due to the issuance of the certificate by an improper officer.
The appellant, M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd., has approached the CESTAT against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise concerning the recovery of Rs. 1,17,39,028/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 .
Essential Training for Tax Professionals: Know Your Sections!
The recovery proceedings began with the issuance of a show cause notice ( SCN ) for recovery of Rs. 1,18,19,369 for wrong availment of notification no. 12/2012- Central Excise dated 17th March 2012, and the certification, prescribed in condition no. 43(d) in the said notification, for availing had not been issued by the proper officer.
The CESTAT bench observed that the certificate issued by the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Power did not include details of the manner in which the bid had been awarded.
The bench further observed that even though “tariff-based competitive bidding” is included in the project’s qualifying description, the certificate required by condition 43(a) is limited to attesting to the project’s status as a “mega power project,” and the condition does not mandate the certification that the adjudicating authority insisted upon, and thus it was their responsibility to determine that the project was ineligible due to the lack of such qualification.
Essential Training for Tax Professionals: Know Your Sections!
Thus the bench is of the opinion that there is no basis to conclude that the certificate is insufficient in the absence of such a finding and, moreover, in the lack of such an accusation in the show cause notice.
The bench was of the view that in the SCN there was an allegation that the certificate was improper, then it was necessary to carry out the ascertainment of the same.
The CESTAT bench, comprising Ajay Sharm and C.J. Mathew, remands for limited fresh adjudication on whether the Associate Vice President qualifies as Project Chief Executive Officer ( CEO ), and the order was set aside.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
