News Update

Delhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockGST - April month collections go past Rs 2 lakh crore threshold - peak to Rs 2.1 lakh croreCX - Alleged clandestine removal - Not replying to SCN on the ground that letter is not furnished by department is only a ruse as reliance is not placed on the same by the respondent authority for adjudicating the SCNs: SCGST - Proper officer observes that the reply filed is not satisfactory and since the assessee has nothing more to say, demand is confirmed - Officer has not applied his mind - Matter remitted: HCGST - Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of registration - Petitioner does not seek to continue his business and has sought cancellation of registration - Order modified accordingly: HCGST - Seizing the outward movement of funds from petitioner's bank account - Life of an order of provisional attachment u/s 83(2) is only one year - HDFC Bank, henceforth, cannot restrain operation of bank account: HCTax - on Death and ContemplationDelhi, Noida schools receive bomb threats; Children sent back homeI-T- Writ court is not required to interfere with assessment order, where assessee also has available option of statutory appeal: HCED seizes Rs 90 Cr stored in crypto in Gaming App scamI-T-Transfer of assessment is sustained, where assessee does not reply to any notice issued in this regard & where valid reasons exist for transferring assessment: HCHM appeals Naxalism will be erased in 2 yrs if Modi voted back to powerAmerica softens offence related to use of marijuanaI-T - Rule 11UA does not mentions pre-condition of approval of balance sheet by Annual General Meeting: ITATAfter US & UK India comes third in terms of 79 mn cyber attacks in 2023: StudyCBIC revises tariff value of gold, silver & edible oils
 
CX - Decision rendered by Committee of Commissioners is an administrative function and fresh decision by same committee is valid in law - delay in filing appeal condoned - COD applications filed by Revenue allowed: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 06, 2016: THESE are Revenue appeals filed against the orders-in-appeal passed by the CCE (Appeals), Goa.

Revenue has filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

The Revenue submits that the delay is for the reason that initially the Review Committee of Commissioners accepted the impugned orders. However, thereafter, the Review Committee reviewed its own decision and ordered to file appeal in terms of Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The AR further contended that the decision to review is an administrative decision and therefore it can be modified /reviewed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-1645-HC-DEL-ST-LB and also the Madras High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-1208-HC-MAD-CUS.

The Counsel's appearing for the parties stated that the Committee of Commissioners once having passed the review order under Section 35E(1) of the CEA, 1944 cannot review its own order. Reliance is placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell International Services India P. Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-982-HC-KAR-ST.

After considering the submissions, the Bench observed that in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Japan Airlines (supra), the decision rendered by the Committee of Commissioners is an administrative function and the same can be changed/reviewed by the Committee. It was also observed that the Madras High Court ruling in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has noted that that there is no explicit provision in law to prevent from constituting a fresh review committee for deciding the matter which has already been decided.

The Karnataka High Court decision cited by the respondents was distinguished on facts. Inasmuch as it was observed that in the said case the facts were that decision to accept the order was taken by the Committee of Commissioners but the Chief Commissioner, on his own, felt that the acceptance of the order by the Committee of Commissioners is not proper and he ordered review of the said case again by Committee of Commissioners and it was in these circumstances, the High Court of Karnataka held that review by the Committee of its earlier decision at the instance of Chief Commissioner is one without the authority of law.

In fine, the CESTAT held that a fresh decision by the same Committee is valid in law.

The delay was condoned and the COD applications were allowed.

(See 2016-TIOL-60-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.