9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the officers of the same rank which is not permissible as per law. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside - liberty is granted to the State to proceed afresh in accordance with law - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The adjudicating authority passed order dated 16.3.2011, Annexure P.4 confirming the demand. It was held that though the petitioner had executed bond, it had failed to comply with the condition laid down under the relevant notification. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Rule 25 of the Rules. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. The petitioner inter alia pleaded that it was new in the field and was not aware that copies of Form H duly attested were required to be submitted to the department. There was no dispute with regard to the factum of export of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 21.8.2012, Annexure P.5 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sar vs. State of Haryana and another, CWP No.9415 of 1990, decided on 21.10.2015 in support of the submission. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents besides supporting the impugned order relied upon judgment of a Single Bench of Delhi High Court in Labh Singh Atma Singh vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 Delhi 171 and judgment of Apex Court in Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan vs. F.N.Rana and others, AIR 1964 SC 648. 7. In M/s Prakash Pipes Industries Limited's case (supra) to which one of us (Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.) was a member, while considering identical situation, after examining the relevant case law on the point, it was held that the revision by the officer of the same rank was not permissible. It was recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r). III. M/s K.C. Textiles Ltd., Pandupindara, Jind v. State of Haryana, (2002) 19 PHT 525 (STT Hr). IV. M/s Intertia Industries Ltd., Rewari v. State of Haryana, (2003) 21 PHT 442 (STT Hr). V. M/s Ram Partap Bansal and Co. P. Ltd., Tohana v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 PHT 530 (STT Hr). We accordingly answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and hold that the revision by officer of the same rank was not permissible." 6. Again in the case of the petitioner itself, this Court vide order dated 5.2.2015 in CWP No. 9683 of 1990, considering identical issue wherein notice issued under Section 40(2) of the Act for revising the assessment order by the officer of same rank was challenged, the Department had wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
