Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I vs M/S Shri Sai Enterprises

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal13 July 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. ST/87821/14-MUM

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal holds that where the assessee entrusted the payment of duty to a consultant, and the consultant forged the bank's seal and signature on the T.R.-6 challan and misappropriated the money, the assessee cannot be held liable for the non-payment where the investigation establishes that the assessee was not complicit in the fraud and the fraud was committed solely by the consultant; the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order exonerating the assessee on that basis is therefore sustained.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV

APPEAL NO. ST/87821/14-MUM APPLICATION NO. ST/CO/91133/14

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-200-13-14 dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)

=====================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=====================================================

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I

: Appellant Versus

M/s Shri Sai Enterprises : Respondent

Appearance Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) : For Appellant Shri S.S. Hawaldar, Advocate : For Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : 13.07.2015 Date of Decision: 13.07.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: Anil Choudhary:

Heard both sides.

2. The admitted facts are that the respondent-assessee had entrusted money with Consultant for depositing the T.R.-6 Challan. But the consultant forged the Banks seal and signature, pocketed the amount, and gave the forged challan in token of having deposited the money with exchequer. On investigation by Revenue, it was found that Mr. Amol Adhav, the Consultant only committed fraud, there was no complicity on part of assessee. Thus, findings of learned Commissioner (Appeals) are correct and upheld. Appeal is dismissed. Cross Objection is disposed off as not pressed.

(Pronounced in open Court)

(Anil Choudhary)

Member (Judicial)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free