9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided any documentary evidence on the basis of which the Tribunal can either modify the adjudicating Commissioner’s order or confirm any part of the said demand of Rs. 1.90 crores Board’s Circular dated 21-8-2008 - When the legal provisions remained the same through out the period, any clarification given by the Board would be applicable for the entire period so long as there has been no change in the legal provision - Appeal is dismissed - ST/371 & 394/2009 - 432-433/2011 - Dated:- 3-3-2011 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pursuant to the remand order, the adjudicating Commissioner has dropped major portion of the tax demand against the respondents leading to this appeal by the Department, which has been filed on the basis of an authorization issued by the Committee of Chief Commissioners. 5. We find that two grounds have been taken by the Committee of Chief Commissioners. Firstly, the Committee has opined that giving the benefit of abatement based on the certificate given by the transporters for the period from 9/05 to 9/07 without seeking and verifying the connected documents is legally not tenable. However, we find that the Committee of Chief Commissioners has not verified any documents nor any material has been provided by it to show to what extent the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round taken by the Committee is that the Board s Circular dated 21-8-2008 should have been applied only for the period January 2005 to August 2005 and not for the subsequent period. We find no reason to accept such a contention. When the legal provisions remained the same through out the period, any clarification given by the Board would be applicable for the entire period so long as there has been no change in the legal provision. 7. In view of our finding as above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the adjudicating Commissioner. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the Department based on the authorization of the Committee of Chief Commissioners are dismissed. (Operative portion of the order was prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
