75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

February 2012

(2011) 24 STR 579 (Tri.-Del.) — O. P. Khinchi v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant provided different services relating to cleaning, gardening, maintenance, repairs, job work in PVC plant — Raised invoices giving details activity-wise — Show-cause notice and the adjudication order considered all services as composite — Appellant contended that impugned order is vague as detailed information relating to job orders were provided but not considered — Order held invalid.

Facts:
The figures depicted in the show-cause notice as well as adjudication order did not throw light as to what was the consideration received for different activities to bring them under the fold of law.

The appellant contended that since show-cause notice being basic foundation of any legal proceedings. For it to be valid it should have the substance of allegation and should be clear in all aspects.

Held:
Adjudicating authorities failed to pass a well-reasoned order. Neither did they speak on incidence of tax on each activity separately, nor did they test the activities of the appellant in detail to bring them under the tax net correctly. Appeal was allowed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 121, dated 8-5-2012 — Foreign investment in Commodity Exchanges and NBFC Sector — Amendment to the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Scheme.

(2011) 24 STR 611 (Tri.-Del.) — Intertoll India Consultants (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida.