Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2017 (10) TMI 498 - AT - Central ExciseTime limitation - whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time bar in the fact that director of the respondent company had acknowledged the order-in-original? - Held that - it is undisputed fact that when the order was acknowledged by the director of the company the control of the company was not with the director but it was with official liquidator appointed by BIFR therefore director of the company had no locus standi for dealing with the matter related to the company. In such case even though order was delivered to the director of the company it can not be said that order was served to the company - the contention of the Revenue that acknowledgment of the order by the director of the company is the date of receipt of the order accordingly appeal is time bar is not acceptable therefore appeal before the Commissioner was well within the time and same was filed after company received the certified copy of the order from the department. Whether the order dated 28-2-3013 in writ petition No. 1951/13 has any implication in the proceedings of the Commissioner(Appeals)? - Held that - the said petition was filed to quash the proceedings of recovery of adjudged dues arising out of Order-in-original and same was not for relief on merit. Though the department has filed an affidavit before the Hon ble Bombay High court wherein issue of service of the order was raised but the high court has not given any findings on that issue and petition was disposed of without granting any relief. The relief sought for was not on the merit which was involved in the appeal which was pending before the Commissioner(Appeals) but from the recovery of the dues. Therefore Hon ble Bombay high court order dated 28-2-2013 will not come into the way for deciding the appeal by the Commissioner(Appeals). Whether the remand ordered by the Commissioner(Appeals) is proper and legal? - Held that - as regard the factual aspect the adjudicating authority is the proper authority to verify the facts therefore even if the commissioner appeal has power to remand the matter but this tribunal has the power to remand the matter accordingly matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order by taking into account the observations of the Commissioner(Appeals) given in the impugned order. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand. Appeal disposed off.
|