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 →

M/s Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Versus Union of India and others

2016 (8) TMI 544 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Validity of impugned order - passed by the Revisionary Authority - officer was of the same rank as is the appellate authority - Held that:- the impugned order was passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India who was also Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. For the detailed reason that the order in appeal as well as revisionary order had been passed by the officers of the same rank is not permissible as per law. Hence, the impugned order dated 3.3.2011, passed by the Revisionary 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

against the order in appeal dated 12.12.2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-III. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority on 25.1.2006, who had sanctioned refund to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 24967 of 2015-M/s NVR Forgings v. Union of India and others, decided on 22.3.2016, submitted that the impugned order passed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

idering the same issue, opined as under: 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional power has been exercised by officer of the same and equal rank who had upheld the order of impugned demand and penalty and dismissed the appeal i.e., Commissioner (Appeals). 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evant 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 integra. This Court in Triputi Udyog Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2010) 37 PHT 521 (P&H) while dealing with 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 Commissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rdingly. The question appears to have been wrongly formulated. It has been pointed out that the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Satya Winery has been accepted by the State of Haryana and instructions dated 12.10.1990 have been issued. Accordingly, the Sales Tax 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 .....

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