(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
M/s. Satyam Technocast ____________________________ Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot (Gujarat) ______ Respondent
Review Petition (C) No. 1538/2016 in Civil Appeal No. 5820-5821/2005, decided on July 15, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. In our judgment dated 23.07.2015 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5820-5821 of 2005 we had accepted one of the contentions of the review petitioner/assessee herein in the following words:
“The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2004 has set aside the order of the Commissioner. On going through the order of the Tribunal we find that the prime reason given by the Tribunal in support of its order is that there is hardly any evidence on record to prove the allegations made against the two respondents herein. We find this to be totally erroneous. We have already reproduced the material which was relied upon by the Commissioner in his order. It is for this reason that some of the discussion from the order of the Commissioner is extracted as well. Faced with the aforesaid position, Mr. L. Kumaran argued that the Commissioner was not entirely correct in his approach. Though it was found that two firms, namely, Alpa Hardware and Alpa Watch Industries were dummy but while calculating the amount payable, it has included the value of the job work which was got done from the other firms as well. Some of the other firms were totally independent and even the show-cause notice or the order of the Commissioner does not point out anything about the same. The Commissioner has included the value of job work which is got done from such outsiders only on the ground that the respondents firms could not produce any document which could not give any particulars of the jobs that were got done from the said parties.”
2. On the aforesaid basis, normal order could have been to remand the case back to the Commissioner. However, immediately after the afore quoted portion, this Court did not do so only on the ground that the tax effect was minimal. In this review petition, the review petitioner/assessee has successfully demonstrated that the tax effect is not minimal. In fact, it is in the neighbourhood of Rs. 27 lacs and with interest and penalty the amount may be much large.
3. Having regard to the above, we allow this review petition to the limited extent by substituting the last two paragraphs of the order with the following paragraph:
“The appeals are allowed except that only for the limited purpose of deducting the job work got done from outside parties from total clearances and for redetermining the liabilities on that basis, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot. This exercise may be completed within a period of six months after affording proper opportunity to the respondent.”
4. The review petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
R.P.(C) No. 1538/2016 In C.A. No. 5820-5821/2005
M/s. Satyam Technocast _____________________________ Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot (Gujarat) ________ Respondent
Date: 15/07/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Krishnakumar R.S., Adv.
Mr. Deva Varat Anand, Adv.
Mr. K.S. Mahadevan, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.
Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Achrya, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
5. The review petition is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
6. Application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
———
