New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 870 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (2) TMI 870 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 558 (Tri. - Del.) - Validity of rectification of its order by the Commissioner - principle of natural justice - although the respondent appeared before the Commissioner for hearing, it requested vide letter dated 29.03.2008 for one month's time. The Commissioner did not reject its request but at the same time went ahead and passed an order dated 30.04.2008 without notice to it and so the impugned order was in effect passed without personal h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ords of appeal and such an error renders the orders to be a nullity. - Decided against the revenue. - Appeal No. ST/795/2009-ST(DB) - Final Order No. ST/A/53937/2015-ST(DB) - Dated:- 31-12-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri R K Grover, DR For the Respondent : Shri B L Narsimhan, Adv ORDER Per R K Singh Revenue is in appeal against order no. Commissioner/RPR/ROM/38/2009 dated 09.06.2009 which was issued by the Commssioner in pursuance to the ROM applic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted 30.04.2008 cannot be said to have been issued ex-parte as it was issued after granting several opportunities of hearing to the respondent. Hearings were fixed on four different dates, some of which were attended by two persons, Shri Amit Pandey and Shri B.L. Dubey. Therefore, there was no error apparent from the records. 3. Ld. Advocate for the respondent pleaded that although the respondent appeared before the Commissioner for hearing, it requested vide letter dated 29.03.2008 for one month .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

28.02.2008, 19.03.2008 and 31.03.2008. Shri Amit Pandey and Shri B.L. Dubey from noticee's accounts Department attended the hearing on 19.03.2008 and stated that they have not yet received any instruction from their head office, Raipur for payment of service tax. They could not deduct service tax from the freight bills of the transporters; hence, payment was not made for the past period. The date may, therefore, be extended. Accordingly, the case was adjourned till 31.03.2008. But, instead .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

recorded that the letter dated 29.03.2008 of the respondent was received in the office of the Adjudicating authority but it is seen that order dated 30.04.2008 was passed without granting any opportunity for personal hearing in the wake of the respondent's letter dated 29.03.2008. We find that Revenue has not been able to produce any evidence before us to show that vide letter dated 29.03.2008 the respondent had given up its right to be heard in person. It is thus evident that the order dat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase, following Suez incident, the Egyptian government took over British companies and agreed to provide compensation. Anisminic Ltd. owned a certain property in Egypt. It claimed certain amount for loss of manganese mine as a consequence of Suez hostilities. The Commission, which was set up to decide the claim, rejected it. The action was challenged on the ground that the Commission was wrong in law in rejecting the claim. But then there was a statutory provision, which reads as under: The deter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unanimously held that an ouster clause could not protect a determination which was outside the jurisdiction of the authority. But on the question whether the determination in the instant case was within or outside the jurisdiction, different views were expressed. According to the majority, the error committed by the Commission was not merely an error of law but an error of jurisdiction which rendered their decision a nullity and, therefore, the decision was not a "decision"' in the .....

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