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

2016 (5) TMI 512 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 512 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 332 (Guj.) - Validity of Tribunal's order - Expand of scope of the appeal - Appellant submitted that Tribunal committed a grave error in expanding the scope of the appeal. The Department never served copy of the show cause notice to the appellant company and there was no proposal under the show cause notice of any tax or penalty against the appellant, therefore, the Tribunal could not have expanded the scope of the show cause notice by in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

company nor a copy was served to the appellant. Under the circumstances, by supplying a mere copy thereof, the Department cannot initiate proceedings against the appellant. In any case, it was neither the duty nor the authority of the Tribunal to direct so. If, after the Tribunal found that no order adverse to the appellant company could have been passed without a hearing, the Department was inclined to initiate the proceedings against the appellant, it had to take its own decision and issue 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

tral question and cannot be decided without full participation of the alleged dummy. - Decided in favour of appellant - TAX APPEAL NO. 619 of 2006, CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 180 of 2006 - Dated:- 2-5-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE with MR PARITOSH GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Appellant is allowed to correct appeal number in the cause title. 2. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cope of adjudication while remanding an appeal of another appellant? 3. Brief facts are as under:- 3.1 The appellant - M/s.Premier Heavy Engineering Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as the appellant company ) has challenged an order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT for short), by which the Tribunal directed the excise authorities to serve a copy of show cause notice to the appellant company and further directed that all parties to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s are available at the site of the appellant company. Upon visit by the officers of the Excise Department at the site of the appellant company, it was noticed that the unit came into existence in the year 1992 and skeleton machinery was installed at the site. There was commonality of directors between the two companies. On the basis of investigation carried out by the Excise Department, the noticee was called upon to show cause why excise duty of ₹ 4,97,348/- already paid should not be rec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the appellant company and the noticee were both one and the same company and the adjudicating authority had already appropriated the said sum of ₹ 4,97,348/- towards excise duty liability. Against this order, the appellant approached the Tribunal after unsuccessfully filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal by the impugned judgment passed following directions:- 3. In view of the finding we set aside the orders impugned and allow this appeals no.E/527 with directio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the findings the order of appropriation of the amount is set aside and the matter also remanded back to the appropriate authority for re-determination if required. 3.5 In short, the Tribunal directed that the copy of the show cause notice to the noticee be supplied also the the appellant company. The Tribunal directed that all parties would be heard afresh by the competent authority regarding issues of duty, penalty and interest liabilities. Once these liabilities are decided, the question 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

e notice by including the appellant company within the sweep of such proceedings. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel Shri Varun Patel for the Department submitted that the appellant company and the noticee were one and the same entities and the appellant company is dummy of the noticee company. It was therefore not necessary to hear the appellant separately before taking final decision of appropriation of the duty amount. 6. As can be seen from the record, the question relates to the appellan .....

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