Held - The Commissioner (Appeals) found as the fact that the corrigendum alone was served upon the two respondents and it was during the personal hearing that the show cause notice was served upon the two respondents, but it did not contain allegations against the respondents.

The Commissioner (Appeals), accordingly, held:

“In view of the above I find certain force in the averment made by the appellants that neither valid show ca.....

Held - The ‘corrigendum’ issued six years later on 19th January 2000, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the so-called corrigendum is in fact a fresh SCN since it materially alters the original SCN both in terms of the demand raised as well as the grounds on which the demand was raised.

For the aforementioned reasons, the question framed for consideration by this Court is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Ap.....

Held - The Appellant filed a reply to the said Show-Cause Notice (SCN) on 5th January, 1994.

For a period of six years thereafter nothing happened. While the Petitioner was under the impression that the proceedings had been dropped, a ‘corrigendum’ Show-Cause-cum-Demand notice dated 19th January, 2000 was issued whereby the demanded amount itself was enhanced from Rs.28,192/- to Rs.1, 15, 655/-. Further, the so called ‘corrigendum�.....

Held - At this stage, another aspect needs to be taken into consideration as regards the legality and validity of the Corrigendum dated 21.02.2022 whereby the adjudicating authority mentioned in para 15 of the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020 was to be read as “Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Aizawl” instead of “Additional Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Dibrugarh”.

Th.....

Held - We find that payment of differential duty penalty and interest has been made on 28.08.2020 within one month of the issue of the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority was duly informed that corrigenda dt.28.09.2020 and 01.10.2020 have been issued much after the provisions of Section 28 have been complied with.

We find that corrigenda to SCN were issued much after such compliance; issued without challenging the letter wri.....

Held - As far as this submission is concerned, the Court notices that there was sufficient opportunity for the DRI, if aggrieved by the order passed by the CCESC on 24th April, 2014, to have challenged that order in accordance with law. However, without adopting that course, it was not open to the DRI to have proceeded to issue a Corrigendum/Addendum to the SCN dated 20th December, 2013 since in terms of Section 127F(2) of the Act, the exclusi.....