TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue cannot pick and choose. Therefore, it is not as if the decision of the STAT had become final. This self-serving letter sent by the department cannot be taken note of by this court because the DCTO, Thuckalay, had passed a final order implementing the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed by the Tribunal and has also ordered for refund to the assessee which was also not denied by the State. If the department was sincere in filing an appeal, they ought to have filed an appeal in the year 2004. It is not open to them to contend after four years before this court that they are still contemplating to file appeals especially without any reservation, they have implemented the order and also ordered for refund wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessing officer since the assessees sold raw-rubber and rubber latex effected to the other States as inter-State sales. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner who had heard the appeals filed by the assessee allowed the transaction as liable to exempt from the tax. The Tribunal agreed with the assessees and dismissed the appeals by its common order dated March 26, 2003 in respect of both M/s. Vaikundam Rubber Company Ltd., Alancholai, Kanyakumari District. It is seen from the additional typed set produced by the counsel for the respondents that in respect of Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd., the DCTO, Thuckalay, by his proceedings dated June 20, 2003 took note of the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained finality, then it is not open to the Revenue to accept the judgment/order on the same question in the case of one assessee and question its correctness in the case of some other assessees. The Revenue cannot pick and choose. (see: Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 219 (SC); [2001] 10 SCC 231, Collector of Central Excise v. Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd. [2003] 1 RC 902; [2003] 158 ELT 130 (SC), Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2005] 5 RC 259, 261; [2005] 186 ELT 266 (SC) and Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2006] 7 RC 453; [2006] 195 ELT 142 (SC), etc.) Therefore, without going into the merits, the learned counsel requested that the writ petitions filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
