|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1817 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1580
Issues involved: The judgment deals with the scope of definition of "marriage hall" under the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, and the validity of Section 3-C read with Section 2(5-B) of the Act in relation to luxury tax on industrial exhibitions held at Bangalore International Exhibition Centre.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Scope of Definition of "Marriage Hall"
The petitioner, an apex body of the machine tool industry, challenged the notices charging luxury tax on the facility at Bangalore International Exhibition Centre. The petitioner argued that the facility does not fall under the definition of "marriage hall" as per the Act and should not be liable for luxury tax. The petitioner also contended that the impugned notices were invalid and sought a declaration of non-liability under the Act.
Issue 2: Validity of Section 3-C and Definition of "Marriage Hall"
The Senior Counsel for the petitioner highlighted the charging section (Section 3-C) and the definitions of "marriage hall" and "luxuries" under the Act. The counsel argued that the authority issuing the notices had no basis to levy luxury tax on space rent, irrespective of the petitioner's status as a marriage hall. The Government Advocate, on the other hand, defended the legality of the endorsements and the constitutionality of the amendments to the definition of "marriage hall."
Judgment Summary:
The Court noted that the petitioner was aggrieved by the endorsements to register under the Act and pay luxury tax. It observed that an exemption was granted post-amendment for industrial exhibitions, but the period before the exemption raised questions on the petitioner's liability. The petitioner agreed to register under protest for the relevant period pending consideration of its replies to the notices.
The Court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's replies, including any additional submissions, in light of the amended definition of "marriage hall" and relevant circulars. The petitioner was given the opportunity to file additional replies within a specified timeframe. The judgment disposed of the writ petition with directions for registration under protest, reply consideration, and left the constitutional validity issues open for future determination.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1579
Issues involved:
The judgment pertains to the assessment of purchase tax on paddy by a rice mill under Section 5A of the Kerala Government Sales Tax Act, specifically addressing the exemption available to small scale industry units and the applicability of previous court decisions.
Assessment of Purchase Tax:
The respondent assessee, a rice mill, was subject to purchase tax on paddy under Section 5A of the Act. The assessment process involved levying tax on purchases from unregistered dealers and calculating the tax payable for the sale of rice and bran. The exemption was granted only for the balance amount after reducing the tax leviable under Section 5A.
Appeals and Tribunal Decision:
The respondent assessee sought exemption on the entire tax payable without deductions for rice and bran. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal, but the Tribunal partly allowed it based on a decision of the Apex Court in a similar case. A rectification petition was filed by the assessee, citing the Apex Court decision and challenging the legality of levying purchase tax.
Legal Interpretation and Previous Decisions:
The Tribunal's reliance on the Apex Court decision was contested, as it pertained to iron and steel, not rice milling. The State argued that a previous judgment by the High Court had already addressed the issue in detail, distinguishing it from the Apex Court decision. Another Division Bench judgment supported the application of the law in a similar case, emphasizing the importance of considering the sale of different products in determining tax liability.
Final Decision:
Considering the precedents and finality of previous court decisions, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, opining that purchase tax should be levied on the entire sales without deductions for rice and bran. The Revision Petitions were allowed in favor of the respondent assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1578
Withdrawal of status of Charitable Institution given to the appellant-assessee under Section 12AA(1)(b)(i) - Held that:- The Tribunal has reached a categorical conclusion that the assessee-Jammu Development Authority cannot be regarded as an institution or trust which may have been set up to achieve the objects enumerated under Section 2 of the Act particularly in view of the addition of first and second proviso made by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 to Section 12 AA of the Act. There are findings of fact that the assessee-appellant has not been acting to advance any of the object concerning general public utility. Even otherwise the proviso which has been added by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 stipulates that the advancement of any other object of the general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business or a cess or fee or any other consideration.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1577
Liability to tax interest does not arise unless it accrues to the assessee - Not when the refund is actually granted in the relevant assessment year in MODVAT Credit - In interest u/s- 244A of the Act" - HELD THAT:- If an amount is due on a particular date and if that amount is unpaid on that date but paid on a subsequent date the recipient of that amount is deprived of legal due payment till actual payment. To compensate the denial of the benefit of the due payment interest is levied. It is not dependent on the claim in any legal proceedings when the assessee has received the money by interest on refund and the said amount required to be shown in the returns as an income making liable to pay tax. The amount offered for tax is not dependent on said interest became irrevocable or refundable. Therefore, the said finding is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. Thus, set aside. As the matter is already remitted to the assessing authority, firstly interest refunded should be calculated and the amount of refund on the subsequent orders by which the said benefit is sought to be withdrawn and thereafter calculate the interest taxable.
Allowance of provision for advances as a revenue expenditure by furnishing details without actual examination of those details - HELD THAT:- the direction given to Assessing Authority to allow the deduction for provision for advances. Further, observed that corresponding adjustment to the income exempted under Section 10A would also be warranted.
Deduction allowed for amount of expenditure incurred by the corporate office to 10A units despite non-involvement in any activity other than earning income mainly interest and dividend - HELD THAT:- the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction and thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - Decision in the case of Wipro Limited [2010 (8) TMI 1053 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed
Expenditure allowance for Provision for warranty expenses despite not being written off & treated as the contingent liability - HELD THAT:- provision for warranty is rightly made by the appellant because it has incurred a present obligation as a result of past events. There is also an outflow of resources. Therefore, the appellant has incurred a liability during the relevant assessment year which was entitled to deduction u/s. 37 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, all the three conditions for recognizing a liability for the purposes of provisioning stands satisfied in this case. There are provisioning which relates to-
- present obligation,
- it arises out of obligating events,
- it involves outflow of resources and
- it involves reliable estimation of obligation.
Keeping in mind all the four aspects, we are of the view that the High Court should not to have interfered with the decision of the Tribunal in this case.
The decision in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] CHENNAI [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
Total turnover of software business taken into account for obtaining deduction u/s- 80HHE - HELD THAT:- the sales tax and excise duty has to be excluded from the turnover for computing deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act, accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The decision in this case of CIT v. Laxmi Machine Works [2007 (4) TMI 202 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
Raising additional substantial question of law - Non-consideration of the claim for capital loss as a colourable devise - Allowing the capital loss based upon the statements made in the affidavits of the Revenue in the matter relating to interim relief for stay of refunds - Allowance of the capital loss suffering from perversity -
"Subterfuge or contrivance" - obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes without resorting to subterfuges - Colourable devices - Tax Evasion vs. Tax Planning - HELD THAT:- "tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the frame work of law". "Colourable devices cannot be a part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods". It is an obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes without resorting to subterfuges.
Decision in the case of VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS BV. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2012 (1) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] and MCDOWELL AND CO. LIMITED VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [1985 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] - followed
-
2013 (11) TMI 1576
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appeal as interest was demanded for a default in payment of service tax. The appeal was dismissed as there is no law to waive interest for admitted default.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1575
Issues involved: Interpretation of liability to pay duty on delivery charges collected by HPCL's bottling units from dealers.
Summary:
The Karnataka High Court addressed the issue of whether the assessee is liable to pay duty on delivery charges collected by HPCL's bottling units from dealers. The Tribunal had previously answered this question in an order dated 25-10-2005, affirmed by the Supreme Court. Despite this, the Revenue continued to demand payment, leading to the assessee filing an appeal seeking relief. The Tribunal granted a stay subject to the condition of paying 50% of the duty. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the earlier judgment affirmed by the Apex Court, which should have influenced their decision. The High Court set aside the interim order of the Tribunal, emphasizing that such actions by the Revenue encourage unnecessary appeals, and the Tribunal should decide the case on its merits in accordance with the law and previous judgments without being influenced by the High Court's observations.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, clarified that it would not act as a precedent in other cases, and directed the Tribunal to decide the case on its merits without being influenced by the High Court's order but in consideration of the judgments passed by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1574
Issues: Refund claim filed beyond the prescribed time limit, Jurisdictional authority for filing refund claim, Applicability of circular issued by the Board.
Refund Claim Time Limit Issue:
The Revenue appealed against the impugned order where the Commissioner (A) allowed the refund claim filed by the respondent for Service Tax paid, rejecting the limitation ground. The respondent filed the refund claim on 30-5-2008 for Service Tax paid on input services up to 31-3-2008. Initially filed with the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Chennai, it was returned with instructions to file before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, the claim was filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Kadapa, rejected for being beyond the six-month time limit prescribed in Notification No. 41/2007.
Jurisdictional Authority Issue:
The Revenue argued that the respondent filed the refund claim almost 10 months after being returned with directions to file before the proper authority, which was a delay caused by their negligence. The claim should have been filed within 60 days per Notification No. 41/2007, later extended to six months. Despite clear instructions, the respondent failed to act promptly, justifying the rejection of the claim due to their own fault.
Applicability of Circular Issue:
The respondent relied on a circular by the Board allowing claims from any premises/office of a merchant exporter registered for Service Tax purposes. They claimed the refund at the location of their headquarters in Chennai, arguing that their headquarters being registered justified the filing location. However, the Board's instruction applies only when the merchant exporter is registered for Service Tax purposes, which was not the case for the respondent's registered office/head office. The Tribunal's decision in Gujarat Tea Processors and Packers Ltd. case supported the respondent's position, stating that filing before the wrong authority could be considered as the date of filing for limitation purposes. As the Tribunal's decision was directly applicable, the Revenue's appeal was rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (11) TMI 1573
The applicant requested modification of stay order for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 10 lakhs. No one appeared for the applicant, so the application was dismissed. The Tribunal had directed the applicant to make the pre-deposit, but it was not complied with, leading to dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1572
Whether the report of the CAG by itself can legally be made the basis for the reliefs claimed in the petition?
Whether the decision of the State Government to develop an international finance service city on the basis of a public private partnership model with a social objective could be termed as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the sole object of equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches?
-
2013 (11) TMI 1571
Issues involved: Appeal against judgment of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding exemption of Bagasse from Central Excise Duty.
Judgment Summary:
Issue 1: Interpretation of Bagasse exemption
The Tribunal observed Bagasse is exempted from Central Excise Duty, following the ratio in Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. CCE - 2012 (286) E.L.T. 397 (Tri.-Del.). However, the High Court referred to its previous judgment in Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, stating baggase/press mud is not a taxable item. The Supreme Court in CCE v. Shakumbhari Sugar and Allied Industries Limited upheld that 'Bagasse' obtained during sugar manufacture is waste and not a final product exempt from duty under Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
In view of the above precedents, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, sustaining it along with the reasons provided. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1570
Issues Involved: Import of goods under EPCG scheme, classification of goods under specific tariff headings.
Import of Goods under EPCG Scheme:
The appellant made two imports during the impugned period. For the first import, only part of the goods reached India before the EPCG license was available, while the rest arrived after the license was granted. The appellant argued that the entire lot should enjoy duty benefit under the EPCG Scheme once the license was issued. The Tribunal held that the grant of EPCG cannot be claimed for the second part of the first import as it occurred before the EPCG license was available. Duty demand on this count was confirmed, emphasizing that the exchequer should not suffer due to mistakes by the exporter or importer. However, for the second lot of import covered by the EPCG license, the benefit was granted as there was no disagreement on this aspect between the parties.
Classification of Goods:
The classification issue arose regarding whether the appellant's goods should be categorized as machinery for the wool weaving industry or as industrial vacuum cleaners for commercial use. The appellant argued for classification under heading 8448 49 90, which pertains to machinery for weaving industries. The Revenue contended that the goods should fall under heading 8479 89 91, which relates to industrial vacuum cleaners. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting that the imported goods were more aligned with the description under heading 8448 49 90, emphasizing the similarity in substance and coverage of both entries. The Revenue's claim that the goods belonged to 8479 89 91 was deemed unreasonable. Consequently, the appellant succeeded on the classification issue, and no duty demand was upheld on this ground. The appeal was partly allowed based on these findings, with consequential relief to follow as per the law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming duty demand for the second part of the first import due to the absence of the EPCG license at the time, while granting the EPCG benefit for the second lot of import. Additionally, the appellant succeeded in the classification dispute, leading to no duty demand on that count.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1569
Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are challenging the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Summary:
The petitioners, engaged in the manufacture of Graphite and Bentonite mixture, received a show cause notice for recovery of Central Excise duty. Despite not challenging the Order-in-Original initially due to a belief that the notice was not served, they later realized the need to challenge it. However, their appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation. The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing extraordinary circumstances and previous successful challenges to similar show cause notices. The respondents also acknowledged the petitioners' past challenges and left the decision to the Court.
The Court noted the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation but considered the genuine explanation provided by the petitioners for the delay. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that in extraordinary cases where gross injustice is suffered and appeals cannot be filed within the prescribed period, the writ jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked. Given the circumstances and previous successful challenges by the petitioners, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original. The petition was allowed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with no costs imposed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1568
Reckoning of Earned foreign exchange towards discharge of export obligation – Application for review filed as regards judgment rendered in [2010 (12) TMI 719 - KERALA HIGH COURT] – Held that:- original authority held that in view of interpretation of DGFT as noted by original authority, overall foreign exchange earnings needs to be reckoned towards discharge of export obligation – No discussion or deliberation by Tribunal on this issue was found – Under such circumstances, we are of view that there was error apparent on face of record of judgment and judgment deserves to be reviewed – Plea that was accepted by Tribunal was that said issue was technical one – Liability under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is different from liability under Customs Act – Earnings by way of Indian currency or Foreign exchange does not get affected by provisions under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Also plea of importer that it was only by Foreign Trade Policy of 2006, that made it mandatory to follow Section 66(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to obtain benefits of Foreign Trade Policy deserved consideration – That also escaped notice in adjudicating process which stood confined to requirement of compliance of Section 66(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to ply motor vehicle as transport vehicle – Ends of justice require that impugned judgment be reviewed – Application for review allowed – Decided in favour of applicant.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1567
Issues involved: Application for alteration of name of the applicant and waiver of pre-deposit in a service tax appeal.
Alteration of Name Application: The application sought to change the name of the applicant from M/s Climate Systems India Ltd. to M/s Visteon Climate Systems India Limited. The applicant submitted a Board Resolution and a fresh Certificate of Incorporation u/s 23(1) of the Companies Act. The Tribunal ordered the alteration, directing that the name of the petitioner/appellant be read as M/s Visteon Climate Systems India Limited.
Waiver of Pre-deposit in Service Tax Appeal: Despite a previous order granting waiver of pre-deposit, the Revenue insisted on the realisation of the adjudicated liability, specifically penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Citing a decision of the Kerala High Court, it was noted that an order of waiver of pre-deposit functions as a stay against recovery of the adjudicated liability. However, due to the lapse of six months since the initial order, the presumptive stay was deemed to have ended. To address this, the Tribunal extended the operation of the stay during the pendency of the appeal, acknowledging that the delay in disposal was not the fault of the appellant/petitioner. The application for waiver of pre-deposit was disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1565
Issues:
Claim of exemption u/s 54EC of the Income-tax Act restricted to Rs. 50 lakhs - Whether restriction justified or not.
Analysis:
The appeal and stay petitions were filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) wrongly limited the exemption claim u/s 54EC to Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessee cited case laws to support the appeal. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) correctly upheld the restriction. The assessee, an individual, had income from various sources in the impugned year. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee owned two properties and had sold them. The assessee invested in bonds issued by National Highways Authority of India and Rural Electrification Corporation bonds. The claim was for exemption of Rs. 1 crore u/s 54EC. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim for the latter investment of Rs. 50 lakhs, stating that the benefit under the provision was available for one financial year only. The CIT(A) affirmed this decision.
The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the case file and judicial precedents. The question was whether the assessee's claim could be restricted since the investments were made in two different financial years. The Tribunal noted that case laws cited by both parties addressed similar scenarios. The Tribunal followed the decision of the jurisdictional bench of the tribunal and allowed the assessee's claim. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the stay petitions became infructuous. The judgment was pronounced in open court on November 1, 2013, in Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1564
Whether APMC, Baroda is liable to claim the market fee on the castor seeds purchased by the respondent Company on the plea that the same were purchased within the market area of APMC, Baroda which castor seeds are used by the said industrial concern for manufacture of castor oil within the market area of APMC, Baroda?
Whether purchase of the castor seeds for use of the respondent industrial concern for manufacturing castor oil falls within Rule 48(2) of the Rules to get exemption from payment of market fee?
Whether the Division Bench was justified in setting aside the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge, holding that the castor seeds purchased by the respondent Company are within the market area of APMC?
Whether the Division Bench is justified in recording the finding on the second issue in connection with LPA No. 195 of 2006 that the respondent concern is not liable to pay any market fee on the de-oiled cakes sold by it which are stated to be the by-product in the course of manufacturing castor oil which is not one of the items enumerated in the Schedule to the Act and the notification issued by the Directorate?
-
2013 (11) TMI 1563
Issues involved: Application for waiver of duty and penalty u/s Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Summary:
The Applicant, engaged in manufacturing lubricating oils, sought waiver of duty and penalty imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Applicant determined the value of goods based on the Cost Construction Method (CAS) and paid duty @ 110% of the cost of production from a previous period. The Department contended that the cost of production for the relevant period should have been considered. The Applicant argued that it's difficult to ascertain the exact cost for a specific quarter and that the issue is revenue-neutral due to Cenvat credit availability for sister units. The Revenue supported the Adjudicating Commissioner's findings.
Upon review, it was noted that value determination under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires consideration of the cost of manufactured goods at the time and place of removal. The Applicant should have used the cost of production during the relevant period for goods transferred to sister units. The Applicant's argument against provisional assessment was dismissed as Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 allows for provisional assessment in such cases. The Applicant was directed to make a pre-deposit of 25% of the duty within eight weeks, with the balance dues waived and recovery stayed during the Appeal's pendency.
In conclusion, the Applicant's request for waiver of duty and penalty was partially granted, subject to the pre-deposit requirement and compliance deadline set by the Tribunal.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1562
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant imported goods under EPCG license but failed to fulfill the export obligation due to adverse market conditions. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs imposed a duty demand, encashed the Bank Guarantee, and imposed a penalty of &8377; 3,80,000 for breach of the EXIM policy. The appellant appealed, arguing that penalty imposition was not justified based on previous Tribunal decisions. The appellate authority reduced the penalty to &8377; 2,00,000. The Tribunal, citing previous decisions, quashed the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld the appeal, with no costs awarded.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1561
Issues: Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, Amendment in Import General Manifest (IGM), Fraudulent intention.
Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Fine and Penalty: The appellant, M/s. Canopus Shipping & Trading Pvt. Ltd., appealed against the order of confiscation of palm oil by the Commissioner of Customs, with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine and imposition of a penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act. Another appeal was filed by M/s. STX Pan Ocean Co Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the vessel, against a similar order of confiscation. The Revenue contended that as no prior IGM was filed for the goods in question as required u/s 30 of the Customs Act, the goods were liable to confiscation and the appellants were liable to penalty.
Amendment in IGM and Fraudulent Intention: The appellant argued that they approached Customs authorities for amendment in the IGM as per Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, which allows for amendment if there is no fraudulent intention. They cited previous decisions to support their contention. The Revenue relied on the findings of lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of filing a complete IGM before the arrival of the vessel. The Commissioner of Customs held that failure to declare the cargo amounted to smuggling and a serious offense, as the IGM is to be filed before vessel arrival, as per public knowledge and circulars issued.
Decision: The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty based on the failure to file a complete IGM. However, the appellant's request for amendment in the IGM was found to have no fraudulent intention, as evidenced by the lack of action on the application for amendment. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal by M/s. Canopus Shipping & Trading Pvt. Ltd. was allowed. Consequently, the imposition of redemption fine and penalty was set aside, rendering the appeal by the shipping company, M/s. STX Pan Ocean Co Pvt. Ltd., as infructuous.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1560
Issues:
1. Application for recalling Tribunal's Order dated 30-10-2012
2. Application for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the order
Recalling of Tribunal's Order:
The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as the applicant failed to show evidence of clearance from COD to litigate the appeal as of the date of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in the case of ECIL v. Union of India. The applicant sought recalling of the order citing a subsequent development in the law regarding the maintainability of appeals without COD clearance. The advocate for the applicant argued for the order to be re-called after rectifying the mistake apparent on record. However, the Tribunal was not convinced by the argument, stating that the principle followed in the order could change with a different view expressed by a Higher Forum or a Co-ordinate Bench subsequently. The Tribunal emphasized that subsequent changes in law cannot be the basis for rectification of an order, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCEx., Belapur v. R.D.C. Concrete India Pvt. Ltd.
Rectification of Mistake:
The ld. AR for the Revenue contended that subsequent changes in law cannot justify the rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal. Referring to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai v. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd., the AR argued against the rectification of the order. The Tribunal, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly the observation at Para 21, found no merit in the miscellaneous applications and accordingly dismissed them.
Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
............
|
9911796707
