Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Bengal Investments Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (TARC) Service Tax-I, Kolkata & Ors.

2015 (6) TMI 1071 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Recovery proceedings - appellant contended that initial order passed by the adjudicating authority was so patent and loudly obtrusive, it was liable to be interfered with by the Commissioner (Appeals) and even if the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any statutory power to condone the delay, the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought to interfere. - Held that:- All relevant facts have been taken into consideration and by no stretch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal-I, Kolkata, while referring to and relying upon section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). - Petition dismissed - Decided against the assessee. - WP No. 526 of 2015 - Dated:- 25-6-2015 - BISWANATH SOMADDER J. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. and Mr. A. Samanta, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. R. Bhradwaj, Adv. and Mrs. Santa Mitra, Adv. for 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

e Tax, Kolkata, upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after recording cogent reasons in support of his decision whereby a demand of service tax including CESS was confirmed for a sum of ₹ 4,69,141/- together with penalty for a sum of ₹ 2,34,571/-. It is noticed that some leniency was also shown by the said authority while dropping a demand of ₹ 6,86,841/-. Nevertheless, being aggrieved, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 2013, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal-I, Kolkata, passed an order observing that the appellant (being, the writ petitioner) had filed the appeal after more than six months from the date of receipt of the order. Since he had no power to condone the delay of more than one month, he proceeded to observe that the appeal was liable to be dismissed and dismissed the appeal, being time barred. The writ petitioner, thereafter, went up before the Appellate Tribunal, being, the 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

one month in addition to the statutory limit of two months as prescribed under section 85 of the 1994 Act. In such a factual backdrop, the writ petitioner has now approached this Court. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Nooh reported in AIR 1958 Supreme Court 86. He submits that the initial order passed by the adjudicating authority was so patent and loudly obtrusive, it was liable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version