9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21.01.2008 dismissed the appeals of the Revenue on the ground that the clearance of Committee on Disputes (Cabinet Secretariat) was not obtained in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE (1995) SUPPL. 4 ACC 541. According to the Ld. D.R., now a constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Electronics Corporation India Ltd. v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.1883 of 2011 found that clearance of Committee on Disputes is not required and accordingly, the direction issued earlier in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) was recalled. Since the order of the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) was recalled, according to the Ld. D.R., it may not be necessary for the Department to obtain the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitions filed by the Revenue on 15.01.2013 are admittedly beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the petitions of Revenue cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. The Ld. representative placed his reliance on the judgment of Jharkhand High Court in W.P(T) No.6852 of 2013 in Hindustan Copper Limited v. Union of India dated 13.03.2014. The Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the judgments of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Air India Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 284 and in CIT v. Central Bank of India (2014) 51 taxmann.com 527. The Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad (2016) 382 ITR 499. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 18.04.02013 was passed suo moto without even giving an opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, this Tribunal found that principles of natural justice was not followed. After referring to the records of the appeals, this Tribunal specifically found that the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue on 15.01.2013 were not even numbered. Accordingly, the order passed by this Tribunal suo moto on 18.04.2013 was recalled and the orders passed on appeal by this Tribunal on 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 were restored. After the order of this Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 restoring the original orders on appeal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008, the Revenue filed a letter on 20.11.2015 requesting the Tribunal to take the Miscellaneous Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue filed a petition or appeal, it has to be scrutinized and should be registered in the year in which it was taken on file. The number should be allotted on the day on which the appeal was actually taken on file. In this case, the Miscellaneous Petitions were filed on 15.01.2013 and these were not taken on file till 13.04.2016. Therefore, the number should have been allotted after 13.04.2016. Be that as it may. Now coming to the application filed by the Revenue, admittedly, the orders of this Tribunal were dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008. Against the orders of the Tribunal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008, the Revenue filed petitions on 15.01.2013, which is beyond the period of four years as provided in 254(2) of the Act. The original order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strued that the application was taken on file and numbered in 2016. 9. Now coming to the present Miscellaneous Petition, admittedly, the Revenue filed the petitions on 15.01.2013, which is beyond the period of four years, therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitions filed by the Revenue are not maintainable. 10. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Hindustan Copper Limited (supra). The assessee filed a copy of the judgment of Jharkhand High Court. An identical issue came before the Jharkhand High Court. The case before Jharkhand High Court was that Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Revenue filed an application for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecall the order beyond the period of four years. In the case before Bombay High Court, in fact, the petition was filed after five years. The Bombay High Court categorically held that the limitation provided under Section 254(2) of the Act was very much applicable and accordingly rejected the prayer of the Revenue to restore the appeal on file. 12. We have also carefully gone through the judgment of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in State Bank of Hyderabad (supra). The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court found that a citizen is entitled to have certainty with regard to his or her liability and issues which were settled long back should not be reopened as it would lead to upsetting the entire financial planning of the individual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
