9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave filed the applications under Rules 39 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and other enabling provisions. The contents of both the applications are similar. The prayer in the case of M/s. Royal Paints Products is reproduced below :- (a) The notice be issued for discovery of the record of the lower quasi-judicial authorities as- well as that of the Government of India, concerning to the present proceedings. (b) That in the alternate a fresh direction be issued for securing the record of adjudication proceeding and appeal proceeding concerning to present case. (c) That the records so procured/summoned be offered to the Applicant/Appellant for inspection. (d) That any other relief self or direction which is think fit and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedure) Rules 1982. He also referred to Rule 16 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and has pleaded that in terms of Rule 16 the appellant is to attach the paper book along with the appeal or within one month of the filling of the appeal a book containing copies of documents, statements of witnesses and other papers on the file, all referred to in the orders of the departmental authorities which he proposed to rely upon at the time of hearing of the appeal, and the respondent gets a right in terms of provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 to file a cross paper book within one month of service of the notice of the filing of the appeal on him or within two weeks of the service of the paper book whichever is later. He has pleaded that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of exercising his jurisdiction under Section 35 to look into the whole evidence, and the law applicable to ascertain whether there was an error. He has also pleaded that the applicant possesses a right of appeal to Supreme Court, and has also referred to Supreme Court Rules 1966. Shri Jain has referred to Order XX(B) at pages 1058, 1059 by R.K. Jain. He has referred to Rule 4 of the Monopolies Act. He has stated that there is no indexing of the file and there are no papers as to the cross-examination of Inspector of Central Excise Shri B.D. Ranadeve conducted in May, 1977. There are also no bills, delivery challans and show cause notices in the file, and the copies of the statement of the partners. He has referred to Pages 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments from the Collector and to allow inspection of whatever documents the Tribunal directed to be shown to them. Shri Tripathi, however, submitted that the applicants should make a specific request as to the documents which they wanted to inspect, and should also satisfy the Tribunal that inspection of those documents was material to the presentation of their case. 4. As regards the paper book filed on behalf of the respondents, Shri Tripathi submitted that it had been filed in order to assist the Bench. A Court has inherent power to take on record any papers. He would leave it to the Tribunal whether or not these papers should be taken on record. 5. In reply, Shri R.K. Jain, the learned authorised representative, has pleaded that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld exercise its powers in this regard only when the lower authorities, in whose custody the records are, refuse inspection to the applicants. If necessary, the Tribunal has power to issue directions to the lower authorities, as to the inspection of records in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, we direct the lower authorities to afford inspection of records relating to this matter to the Applicants in accordance with law, subject to the respondents right to the exercise of privilege to refuse inspection of confidential documents . The applicants should first invoke his right of inspection before the lower authorities. In case the lower authorities refuse to grant inspection to the applicants, they can always approach the Tribunal for n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction be textually inadmissible, have retrospective effect attributed to them, provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment. Their Lordships can have no doubt that provisions which, if applied retrospectively, would deprive of their existing finality orders which, when the statute came into force, were final, are provisions which touch existing rights . (Extract taken from Kanga Palkivala s The Law and Practice of Income Tax - 7th Edition - Vol. I page 7). The Hon ble Supreme Court in Bagchi Co. v. C.I.T. reported in (1951) 20 I.T.R. 33 and Kudilal Seksaria v. C.I.T. reported in (1964) 54 I.T.R. 653 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
