Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

REMEDY PROSECUTED BEFORE A WRONG FORUM

Central Excise - By: - Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - Dated:- 17-10-2015 - The Limitation Act as well as the special enactments stipulate the period for not only for the original proceedings, but also for appeals and application. If the limitation is for presentation of original proceedings, the question of condonation of delay even for the best of the reasons, does not arise. However latitude is shown by the Parliament in respect of limitation for filing of appeals and other misc. proceedings. An appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellate proceedings. The condonation of delay is in the discretion of the authority whereas the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act is the mandate under law without leaving any scope for subjectivity. In Choice Laboratories Limited V. Union of India - 2011 (9) TMI 934 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT the Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty and imposed penalty on 29.03.2004 against which the petitioner filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who also dismissed the appeal. The Tribu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the grounds for the delay. The Revision Authority dismissed the Revision Application only for the delay of 4 years and 9 months which was not properly explained and it had no power to condone such long delay. The High Court held that the petitioners were prosecuting before the wrong forum though under bona fide belief. The time spent in pursuing such remedy cannot be ignored while considering the limitation of delay caused in filing the revision application. The time spent in prosecuting remedy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Original Authority, dated 23.03.2006, on 09.05.2006. He filed appeal before the Tribunal. On 28.09.2006 the Tribunal informed the respondent that the appellant to avail the remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was presented before Commissioner (Appeals) on 09.10.2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) computed the limitation from the date of furnishing the copy i.e., 09.05.2006 up to the date of presentation of appeal before him on 09.10.2006 and held that the appeal was barred by limit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT the High Court held that under normal circumstances the order passed by the Commissioner are appealable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not refuse to entertain the appeal in this case but took the appeal on file, issued notice to the Department. It appears that the also did not point out before the Tribunal that appeal was not maintainable as against order and no steps were taken by the Department to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal in 2011 in which th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he revision application on 08.07.2011 after a period of 3 months and 14 days from the date of receipt of the order. As per Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, revision could be filed within a period of 3 months and the condonable period is further 3 months. Therefore the delay involved in this case is only 14 days which may not be considered as inordinate delay. The Revenue authority could have been considered the petitioner s plea and entertained the revision and considered the claim on mer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quently spent before the Tribunal. The High Court set aside the order and restored the same to Joint Secretary (Revision), Government of India for deciding the application for condonation of delay as well as the application in accordance with law. In Commissioner of Central Excise V. Raj Petroleum Products - 2015 (5) TMI 449 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court observed that the appeal relating to the demand or duty on clandestine removal and availment of credit and levy of interest and penalty is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version