TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Enforcement [2013 (2) TMI 396 - SUPREME COURT] the delay by itself will not be a ground for setting aside an order, which may otherwise be legally valid and justifiable, however, such order only requires a closer and careful scrutiny by the Court. In such event, the petitioner has to prove that the delay by itself has caused prejudice to him. - Decided against the assessee. Decision of tribunal - retrospective or prospective - Held that:- It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that if a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. Therefore in the light of the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order passed by the CESTAT cannot be of any use to the case of the petitioner. Even on merits, it has to be noted that the petitioner is an institution which is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 22.01.2014, the respondent classified the activities of the petitioner into one of Commercial Training or Coaching service attracting payment of service tax and consequentially confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice for service tax of ₹ 7,79,53,322/- after appropriating the sum of ₹ 3,69,749/- paid by the petitioner company during the course of investigation, besides leving a penalty of ₹ 7,79,53,322/-. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in passing the impugned order and it is vitiated by delay. The petitioner attended personal hearing on 26.02.2013 and on the same day they have submitted a written submission. While so, the impugned order came to be passed nearly after 11 months from the date on which the petitioner attended the personal hearing. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Circular dated 05.08.2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi, wherein it was directed that in all such cases where personal hearing have been concluded, it is necessary to communicate the decision immediately or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is impugned in this writ petition, renders the same vitiated and on that ground, he prayed this Court to allow the writ petition. 5. On the contrary, the learned standing counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed this writ petition by relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Telestar Travels Pvt Ltd., vs. Special Director of Enforcement) reported in 2013 (289) ELT 3 (SC) to contend that even though there is a delay in passing the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, such delay by itself will not be a ground for setting aside the order when it is otherwise legally valid and justified. The Honourable Supreme Court further held that if there is a delay in passing an order, such order requires careful and closer scrutiny. Therefore, according to the learned standing counsel for the respondent, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner with reference to delay is legally not sustainable. If the petitioners pleads that the delay vitiates the order impugned in this writ petition, it is for the petitioner to prove that such delay has caused prejudice to him in any manner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) (zzc) from 01.07.2003. By virtue of the amendment, the expression Commercial training or coaching centre in clauses (26) (27) and (90a) was made to mean and include any centre or institute registered as a trust or society or similar other organisation under law for the time being in force and carrying on its activity, with or without profit motive. In view of the said order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be considered at this stage. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., reported in 2008 (230) ELT 385 (SC) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that if a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. Therefore in the light of the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order passed by the CESTAT cannot be of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
