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

2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 679 (P & H) - Export of goods - Failure to furnish ARE 1 and proof of export of goods as required under Rule 19 of the Rules - Manufacture and export of hand tools through merchant exporter who applied Form H - Availed benefit of Small Scale Industries Exemption notification dated 1.3.2003 - Held that:- the impugned order was passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India who was also Commissioner of Central Excise and Cust .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 rejecting the revision application filed by it and upholding the order in appeal dated 21.8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is exempt from duty. Even inputs can be procured without payment of duty. Apart from clearing the goods in the domestic market, the petitioner exported few consignments during the assessment year 2009-10. The petitioner exported all the consignments through merchant exporter who applied Form H. Form H had been prescribed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as proof of export of goods. The respondents issued show cause notice dated 25.2.2010 whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay duty amount .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cuted 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 reg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ho will exercise the powers of the Central Government. The Central Government had delegated its power to Joint Secretary to Government of India. The order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8 had been passed by the Joint Secretary who was Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Vide order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8, the revisional authority dismissed the revision application of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was bound to comply with procedure of ARE-1 which it had failed. Further, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeals). Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in M/s Prakash Pipes Industries Limited, Mayar, Hisar vs. State of Haryana and another, CWP No.9415 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 Shod .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ith the identical issue had held that the revision by officer of the same rank was not permissible. It was recorded as under:- Re. Que.(2): Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was acting as assessing authority and though revisional powers were delegated to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the said powers could be exercised by an officer only in relation to orders passed by his subordinates and not in respect of orders passed by of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tribunal has been holding that revision by officer of the same or lower rank was not permissible. By way of instances, he has produced following orders of the Tribunal:- I. M/s Kailashpati Cotton (P) Ltd., Siwani v. State of Haryana, (2001) 18 PHT 576 (STT Hr). II. M/s S.R. Oils & Fats Ltd., Bahalgarh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 19 PHT 272 (STT Hr). III. M/s K.C. Textiles Ltd., Pandupindara, Jind v. State of Haryana, (2002) 19 PHT 525 (STT Hr). IV. M/s Intertia Industries Ltd., Rewari v. St .....

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