9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence before us to show that vide letter dated 29.03.2008 the respondent had given up its right to be heard in person. It is thus evident that the order dated 30.04.2008 was passed without granting personal hearing when there was a request made for the same and without rejecting that request. It is certainly an error which is apparent from the records of appeal and such an error renders the orders to be a nullity. - Decided against the revenue. - Appeal No. ST/795/2009-ST(DB) - Final Order No. ST/A/53937/2015-ST(DB) - Dated:- 31-12-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri R K Grover, DR For the Respondent : Shri B L Narsimhan, Adv ORDER Per R K Singh Revenue is in appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case it is useful to reproduce para 5 5.1 of the order dated 30.04.2008: 5. Personal hearings were fixed on 04.01.2008, 28.02.2008, 19.03.2008 and 31.03.2008. Shri Amit Pandey and Shri B.L. Dubey from noticee's accounts Department attended the hearing on 19.03.2008 and stated that they have not yet received any instruction from their head office, Raipur for payment of service tax. They could not deduct service tax from the freight bills of the transporters; hence, payment was not made for the past period. The date may, therefore, be extended. Accordingly, the case was adjourned till 31.03.2008. But, instead of attending the hearing on 31.03.2008, the noticee again sought one month's time through their letter No. LEKHA/SER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. Anisminic Ltd. owned a certain property in Egypt. It claimed certain amount for loss of manganese mine as a consequence of Suez hostilities. The Commission, which was set up to decide the claim, rejected it. The action was challenged on the ground that the Commission was wrong in law in rejecting the claim. But then there was a statutory provision, which reads as under: The determination by the Commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called in question in any court of law. A number of important questions having far-reaching effect arose before the House of Lords: What is the effect of such ouster clause? Whether the jurisdiction of the court is totally ousted? Whether the error can be said to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o inquire and determine, exceeded or departed from their mandate, their determination was without jurisdiction. Agreeing with the above view, Lord Wilberforce observed that once it was established that the determination made by the Commission was beyond its powers, it could not be upheld. Bombay Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-2013 (359) ITR 371 (Bom) has in fact held that the dismissal of appeal for non prosecution is an error in the face of the law as the option for dismissing appeal for default is not available to the Tribunal. This ratio can be reasonably extrapolated to cover a situation where when the order was passed without rejecting assessee request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
