Claim of GTA credit cannot be denied without considering the evidence produced by assessee: Madras HC
Recently in the case of “India Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise” wherein India Cements Ltd. (hereinafter referred as petitioner) was denied the ISD and GTA credit without considering the documents and evidences produced before the jurisdictional range officer
The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of cements and. The case on hand relates to liability of the petitioner for the period from January 2008 to October 2012 in respect of ISD credit and GTA credit. The adjudicating authority called for verification report from the jurisdictional Range Officer, vide e-mail dated 21-12-2020. After receiving the same, the jurisdictional range officer sent a communication dated 29-12-2020 calling upon the petitioner to furnish the details sought for. On the very next day i.e., 30-12-2020, the petitioner submitted all the relevant details to the jurisdictional Range officer.
Despite providing the relevant details on the very next day, the range officer informed the adjudicating authority vide e-mail dated 30-12-2020 that the noticee had not produced the called for documents for verification and that therefore, the claim of the noticee could not be verified. In that view of the matter, the adjudicating authority chose to pass the impugned order.
There was absolutely no delay on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, the relevant materials furnished by the petitioner were not taken note of before passing the impugned order on 30-12-2020. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has to necessarily revisit the issue by taking note of all the particulars and the materials furnished by the petitioner on 30-12-2020.
Thus the petitioner filed Writ and through his senior counsel gives an undertaking that they would extend the fullest co-operation for expeditious conclusion of the adjudication proceedings post remand.
Recording the said submission, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass order afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made earlier.