Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Versus M/s Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd.

2016 (2) TMI 870 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 hearing. Therefore, there was a mistake apparent from the records which need .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded 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 application seeking rectification of mistake in the earlier order in original No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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's time. The Commissioner did not reject its request but at the same ti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y 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 of attending the hearing on 31.03.2008, the noticee again sought 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

n 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 dated 30.04.2008 was passed without granting personal hearing when there was 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

panies 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 determination by the Commission of any application made to them under this Act s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich 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 eyes of law. According to Lord Reid, "determination" means a rea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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