9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch services and in the absence of such evidence the abatement could not have been claimed. Held that:- the applicability of abatement of 75% under the notification dated 1st March, 2006 which is in effect an exemption ought to have been considered in accordance with the instructions issued by the department itself on 27th July, 2005. What had to be seen by the Tribunal was substantial compliance, and if the statute had been followed sufficiently, then in that event the benefit claimed should not have been denied. In other words, it should not be an automatic or mechanical levy and consequently no penalty could have been imposed. Rejection of adjournment - Non-availibility of counsel - Tribunal proceeded without a proper opportunity of hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id notification even though was withdrawn on 1st March, 2008 yet the benefit of 75% abatement was available for the period in question which has been disallowed on the ground that the transporters did not give any declaration or certificate for providing such services and in the absence of such evidence the abatement could not have been claimed. 3. Sri. Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant corporation contends that firstly the liability was subject to the said abatement and secondly the nature of the declaration that was being sought was not justifiable as the appellant having discharged its burden, there was nothing to the contrary to deny exemption. 4. The substantial questions therefore raised are that the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant material and not on irrelevant considerations or else it can be impeached as being perverse. 7. Consequently, on account of this procedural error the order gets vitiated which gives rise to a substantial question as to whether the Tribunal could have mechanically proceeded to reject the appeal inspite of the fact that adjournment had been genuinely sought. The reason for rejecting the adjournment therefore does not appeal to us as it is clearly unjust. Consequently, it would be of no use to keep the matter pending. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed on account of the impugned judgment having been rendered in violation of principles of natural justice adversely affecting the appellant which is clearly raises a substantia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
