TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd if such opinion is absent either because of a fundamental infirmity in the composition of the Committee or on account of absence of a manifestation of opinion, there would be no valid decision in the eye of law and consequently no valid appeal could be said to have been preferred. - Following the decision of Delhi High Court judgement in Kundalia Industries [2012 (8) TMI 789 - DELHI HIGH COURT], appeal dismissed - decided against the revenue. - No. ST/772/2012 with ST/Misc./61518/2013 - Final Order No. 50533/2014 - Dated:- 11-2-2014 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Amresh Jain, D.R For the Respondent : Shri J.K. Mittal, Advocate, Shri Nitesh Garg, C.A. JUDGEMENT Per G. Raghuram : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision which held that an appeal by Revenue is not maintainable in circumstances where failure of the Committee of Commissioners fails to manifest due application of mind for recording an opinion as to the desirability of preferring an appeal. 3. The applicant herein filed an RTI application dated 2.1.2013 seeking information regarding the date and place when the Committee of Chief Commissioners met to review. The applicant received a reply dated 4.2.2013 furnishing the information sought for along with copies of the review note/note sheets, on the basis of which the appeal was preferred. Copy of the note and the note sheets are furnished along with this application. 4. The material on record discloses that an elaborate note was drawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantially similar matrix of facts, the Tribunal in L.R. Sharma rejected the appeal on the ground that there was no proper authorisation for preferring the appeal. This decision and the reasons recorded therein were followed in the subsequent judgement in Japan Airlines (supra). 7. Shri Amresh Jain, ld. Departmental Representative brings to our notice the judgement of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated 18.7.2013 in Tax Case No. 04 of 2011, in an appeal preferred by the Union of India against M/s Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. Union of India had preferred this appeal against the order of this Tribunal dated 4.6.2010 dismissing Revenues appeal on the ground that there was no consent by both the Commissioners (constituting the Commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no discretion but to hear it. This reason recorded by the Tribunal to infer absence of any authority to go into the structural validity of a review opinion recorded by Committee of Commissioner, is reiterated in para 18 of this judgement as well. 11. With respect, we are of the view that the above proposition in the judgement in Bhushan Ltd. does not reflect the correct position in law. In Delhi High Court judgement in Kundalia Industries, the facts are that the Tribunal had dismissed Revenues appeal on the ground that no opinion was formed in accordance with Section 35B. Revenue carried the matter to the Delhi High Court which concurred with the view that there was no formation of opinion in terms of Section 35B, reiterating that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
