TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is granted to the State to proceed afresh in accordance with law - Decided in favor of assessee. - CWP No. 24967 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. D.D.Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP No.24967 and 26321 of 2015 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issues involved in both the petitions are identical. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No.24967 of 2015. 2. In CWP No.24967 of 2015, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8 passed by the revisional authority rejectin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011, Annexure P.4 confirming the demand. It was held that though the petitioner had executed bond, it had failed to comply with the condition laid down under the relevant notification. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Rule 25 of the Rules. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. The petitioner inter alia pleaded that it was new in the field and was not aware that copies of Form H duly attested were required to be submitted to the department. There was no dispute with regard to the factum of export of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 21.8.2012, Annexure P.5 dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty apart from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1990, decided on 21.10.2015 in support of the submission. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents besides supporting the impugned order relied upon judgment of a Single Bench of Delhi High Court in Labh Singh Atma Singh vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 Delhi 171 and judgment of Apex Court in Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan vs. F.N.Rana and others, AIR 1964 SC 648. 7. In M/s Prakash Pipes Industries Limited's case (supra) to which one of us (Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.) was a member, while considering identical situation, after examining the relevant case law on the point, it was held that the revision by the officer of the same rank was not permissible. It was recorded as under:- 5.The matter is no longer res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pindara, Jind v. State of Haryana, (2002) 19 PHT 525 (STT Hr). IV. M/s Intertia Industries Ltd., Rewari v. State of Haryana, (2003) 21 PHT 442 (STT Hr). V. M/s Ram Partap Bansal and Co. P. Ltd., Tohana v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 PHT 530 (STT Hr). We accordingly answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and hold that the revision by officer of the same rank was not permissible. 6. Again in the case of the petitioner itself, this Court vide order dated 5.2.2015 in CWP No. 9683 of 1990, considering identical issue wherein notice issued under Section 40(2) of the Act for revising the assessment order by the officer of same rank was challenged, the Department had withdrawn the said notice. However, lib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
