9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst ex-parte. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court. By directing the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, this Court quashed and set aside the order and directed that the Petitioner be heard after the deposit of the amount. Proceedings were relegated to the Commissioner. 5. The Petitioner appeared for hearing on 3 January 2019 and submitted documentary evidence. By the impugned order dated 29 July 2019 the Commissioner confirmed the demand totalling to Rs. 18,31,80,394/- under Section 73 of the Act was confirmed. Hence this Petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decisions in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs. Asstt. Commr. Of Income Tax, Mumbai ITXA No.144 of 2006, decided on 14 November 2008. and EMCO Ltd. Vs. Union of India Writ Petition No.12124 of 2013, decided on 11 February 2014. He submitted that there is not only delay of six months from conclusion of the argument till pronouncement of order but because of this delay gross errors have occurred in the order which has caused severe prejudice to the Petitioner. Learned counsel also relied upon the Circular issued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the results of litigation. This confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments. Justice, as we have often observed, must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done." 14. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, 2002 (3) BCR (SC) 360 : 2001 (7) SCC 318 has also reconsidered the serious issue of delayed delivery of judgment by some of the High Courts and laid down certain guide-lines in the matter of pronouncement of judgments by the High Courts. 15. In the case of Devang Rasiklal Vora v. Union of India, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.) = 2004 (3) BCR 450, the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us is a party (Daga, J.) had an occasion to issue directions to the President of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai to frame and lay down the guide-lines on the similar lines as were laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the Benches of the said Tribunal. The similar guide-lines can conveniently be laid down for the courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence in the results of litigation. This confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments ." (emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the above, it is very clear that the authorities under the Act are obliged to dispose of proceedings before them as expeditiously as possible after the conclusion of the hearing. This alone would ensure that all the submissions made by a party are considered in the order passed and ensure that the litigant also has a satisfaction of noting that all his submissions have been considered and an appropriate order has been passed. It is most important that the litigant must have complete confidence in the process of litigation and that this confidence would be shaken if there is excessive delay between the conclusion of the hearing and delivery of judgment. 7. Therefore, in this case, we find that the delay by the Adjudicating Authority in rendering its order nine months after the conclusion of the hearing has caused prejudice to the Petitioner as it has not considered the evidence produced in respect of return of goods within 180 days. 8. We have not relegated the Petitioner to the alternate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was situated outside India. In respect of maintenance and repair services it is not mandatory provision of the rule that the article undergoing repair and maintenance should be located in India. Therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 2 (1)(d)(iv) fo the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, the noticee was required to pay service tax under reverse charges as being recipient of service located in India in respect of service provided from a place outside India. The demand of service tax totally amount to Rs. 10,45,71,398/- for receipt of 'Management, Repair and Maintenance Service' falling under Section 65(105)(zzzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 is therefore maintainable." In the discussion, at both the places the Commissioner has referred to Section 65 (105) (zzzg) of the Act. 11. Section 65(105) (zzg) relates to 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' while Section 65 (105)(zzzg) refers to 'Mailing List Compilation and Mailing'. It is not even the case of the Respondents that the activities of the Petitioner are in relation to Mailing List. Taxation of Services (provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006 have been framed. Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
