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

2016 (9) TMI 786 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2016 (9) TMI 786 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - TMI - Condonation of delay - in presentation of Memorandum of Review - 267 days - maintainability of review - Held that:- Law is set at rest that review is entertainable under Order 47 Rule 1 and clauses mentioned thereunder. From Bar effort was to convince that there was mistake on the part of the Counsel due to not pointing out the amended Section 35-F. But we hold that there is hardly any scope to equate the alleged mistake of Counsel in not pointing o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

over, on concession though opportunity to deposit ₹ 35 lakhs only was obtained on September 4, 2015, instead of its deposit, rather causing loss of revenue, has been utilising the said amount as their own under the garb of this application. Therefore, we fail to look eye to eye with the submission of appellant to accept his contention that there was any mistake or error apparent on the face of record, to entertain the review application, since the provision of amended Section 35-F was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at event the Court could have thought otherwise for consideration of said application proposing condonation of such inordinate delay. In view of taking note of having no merit in the review application and since the judgment under review is found as beyond the scope of review for the reasons recorded above, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. As a consequence thereof, the application for review also stands dismissed. - Decided against the appellant - GA No.1943 of 2016, GA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elay of 267 days in presenting the Memorandum of Review being RVWO No.20 of 2016. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Saptangshu Basu for the applicant and also the learned Advocate Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharyya, representing the respondent- Commissioner of Central Excise and perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the application for review of the order dated 4th September, 2015 passed in GA No.2856 of 2015 and also the grounds made for review. Drawing our att .....

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 authorities vis-à-vis the respondent submitted that though the order under review was delivered on 4th September, 2015, the review application was filed only on 28th June, 2016 which is hopelessly barred. The application to obtain certified copy was submitted on May 18, 2016 and copy was obtained on 19th May, 2016, and the review application was filed again after more than a month. He further argued that by the order under review the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or other shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied. Thereafter by Act 25 of 2014 Section 35-F has been included by amendment with effect from 01.10.2014. Mr. Basu tried to impress - that since the appeal as preferred was dismissed and since there is no pending appeal, the benefit of the provisions of Section 35-F particularly 2nd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entral Excise lower in rank than the Commissioner of Central Excise; * * * * * * * * * Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. Law is set at rest that review is entertainable under Order 47 Rule 1 and clauses mentioned thereunder. From Bar effort was to convince that there was mistake on the part of the Counsel due to not pointing out .....

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