Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Versus M/s Vinka Industries

2016 (1) TMI 557 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Condonation of Delay in filing the appeals by the revenue - The delay is for the reason that the Review Committee of Commissioners accepted the impugned orders. However, thereafter the Review Committee reviewed its own decision and ordered to file appeal in terms of Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - The question to be considered is whether the decision of review in terms of Section 35E(1) is an administrative function exercised by the Committee and which can be changed/reviewed b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Madura Coats, the Hon'ble High Court found that there is no explicit provision in law to prevent from constituting a fresh review committee for deciding the matter which has already been decided. - A fresh decision by the same committee is valid in law. - Considering the circumstances, we allow the delay in the present case. - Delay condoned - Decided in favor of assessee. - Application No. E/COD/94638 to 94652, 94654 to 94669 & 94994/15, Appeal No. E/86636 to 86650, 86652 to 86667 & 87056 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, M/s Prateek Alloys Pvt Ltd, M/s Pentair Water India Pvt Ltd, M/s Coral Clinical System, M/s Apex Packaging Product Pvt Ltd, M/s Ambey Metallic Ltd, M/s Sandhya Enterprises, M/s Elin Electronic Ltd, M/s Ellenabad Steel Pvt Ltd, M/s Mandovi Casting Pvt Ltd ,M/s Maa Durga Enterprises, M/s Rututek Enterprises, M/s Rivon Enginnering Co, M/s Titanor Components Ltd, M/s Kundil Alloys Pvt Ltd, M/s Essel Propack Ltd, M/s Alpha Industries For the Appellant : Shri V K Agarwal, Addl. Commr. (AR) For the R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n and therefore it can be modified /reviewed. Learned AR relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 541 (DEL). He also relies on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 (307) ELT 276 (Mad). 3. On the other hand, the Counsel's appearing for the parties state that the Committee of Commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s an administrative function exercised by the Committee and which can be changed/reviewed by the Committee. This issue has been decided by the Delhi High Court in the case of Japan Airlines (supra). The Hon'ble High Court held that:- "10.9 In our view, the duty discharged by the Committee of Commissioners is purely administrative and, cannot be, categorized as a quasi-judicial function since, it does not decide the lis between the parties, that is, the Revenue and the assessee. There 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

0.10 Furthermore, the instruction issued by the Revenue, is largely pivoted on the decision of the Division Bench of this court rendered in Kundalia Industries's case, which in any event, is the subject matter of the instant reference. For the reasons that we would give hereafter, it would be clear that the approach commended in Kundalia Industries case does not find favour with us. 11. Therefore, having regard to the above, which is, that in our opinion, the decision rendered by the Committ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

High Courts. In the case of Dell International Services (supra), the facts were that decision to accept the order was taken by the Committee of Commissioners. However, the Chief Commissioner on his own felt that the acceptance of the order by the Committee of Commissioners is not proper. He ordered to review the said case again by Committee of Commissioners. It was in these circumstances, the High Court of Karnataka held that the review of its earlier decision of the Committee of Commissioners a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version