9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 lakhs on Shri Fernandes under Section 114 of the Act. He dropped the proceedings against two other noticees namely Shri L.M. Popat and Shri P.M. Kheni. Against this order Shri Fernandes filed an appeal bearing No. C/337/2000-Bom. The appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal vide their Order No. C-I/345-346/WZB/2001, dated 5-2-2001 [2001 (131) E.L.T. 250 (T)]. The Tribunal observed that the charge was that Shri Fernandes was taking the currency to Dubai clandestinely from Mumbai. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had accepted that the very currency had been imported by Shri Fernandes on his arrival to Mumbai from Dubai earlier. This was done in view of the certificate made by the foreign exchange dealer in Dubai. The Tribunal obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r fresh decision on hearing both appeals. 4. Another application numbered C/MA(Ors)-827/2001-Mum. was filed on 1-10-2001. Reference was made to the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order to the effect that M/s. Thomas Cook Al Rostamani had confirmed the sale of foreign exchange to Shri Fernandes prior to his arrival in India. The claim was made in the miscellaneous application that the department was causing further investigation into the genuineness of the certificate. On this ground a prayer was made for passing order remitting the case back to the adjudicating authority for adjudication de novo after taking on record the evidence which was currently being collected by the Revenue. 5. On these two applications we have today ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter dealing with the Income Tax law the Supreme Court had examined this very issue in their judgment in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP v. Vijai International Udyog - 1985 (152) ITR 111. The Supreme Court had held that the doctrine of merger had no application to the facts before them since the Tribunal had made the mistake of not clubbing the two appeals together and by disposing of one appeal only. As we have observed above in the present case the Tribunal was not in error. But the fact remains that on that date the appeal had been filed in the Tribunal. In this judgment the Supreme Court had directed the Tribunal to hear both appeals afresh on the same day and to dispose of both by a common order. We have also seen the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
