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 →

Sri Kailash Agrawal Versus The Commissioner (Appeals-I) , Central Excise & Customs (Appeals-I) Raipur

2016 (4) TMI 195 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

Failure to deposit the penalty amount as ordered under Section 35F - Held that:- The Appellant does not appear to have brought to the attention of the authorities at earlier stage the dropping of the proceedings against the original assessee on 16.12.2013. The fact was mentioned for the first time in the Miscellaneous Application. The earlier interim order of the Tribunal dated 3.9.2014 directing deposit of entire penalty amount of ₹ 27,000/-. Therefore could not be faulted with.

.....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tural justice which apply with equal force to Courts and Tribunals. It is trite law that justice must not only be done but it must appear to be done. A litigant approaching the Court with a perceived grievance according to his understanding has a right to be told why his perception was not correct. He cannot be confronted with the conclusions without telling him the reasons. Modification application restored to file for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law - Tax Case No. 39 of 2015 - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lure to deposit the penalty amount of ₹ 27,000/- as ordered under Section 35F of the Act on 3.9.2014. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a search was carried out at the premises of M/s. Shubh Labh Ispat Private Limited, Raipur. On basis of the papers seized and statements recorded, on a prima facie opinion for clandestine removal of 97.160 MT MS Ingot during the period of April 2005 to December 2006, apart from the Company, show cause notice was issued to the Appellant als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

16.12.2013 in Appeal No. 406-409/RPR-I/2013. Aggrieved, the Appellant carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Act which ordered deposit of entire penalty of ₹ 27,000/- on 3.9.2014 without again appreciating that the demand against original assessee itself had been dropped. 4. The Appellant, in the circumstances filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal on 10.10.2014 mentioning the fact that the proceedings against the original assessee had already .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5.2015. The Court may not test the order of the authority including the Tribunal on grounds not urged before them. Even the final order of the Tribunal cannot be said to suffer any deficiency if a party does not appear and plead its case properly. 6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and are in partial agreement with the submissions on behalf of the Respondent. The Appellant does not appear to have brought to the attention of the authorities at earlier stage the droppin .....

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