9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addressed to the Branch Manager, Royal Bank of Scotland, New Delhi Branch, New Delhi, and the letter is termed as "Discharge Letter. In the said letter, the Assessing Officer confirmed to the Bank that they do not have any claims in respect of the aforesaid two bank guarantees, and requested that the said communication may be treated as Discharge Letter, for the purpose of the records of the Bank. Thus, if the Revenue thought fit to re-agitate the matter, obviously, the Assessing Officer would not have given such letters, discharging the bank guarantees. Direction given to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations, dated 03.11.2015, 06.11.2015, 27.01.2016, 29.02.2016 and 05.04.2016, and effect refund of the admissible a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.08.2016). Even today, there is no written proof produced by the respondents to show that the Appeal has been filed against the order passed in Tax Case Revision Nos.94 to 96 2014. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a letter, given by the Advocate on record, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 29.08.2016, which is to the following effect:- Sir, This is to confirm that the undersigned had filed the Caveat Petition against the captioned judgment on December 04, 2015. The said Caveat was thereafter renewed from time to time, i.e., on February 02, 2016, Ma 02, 2016, and July 29, 2016. I have not been served with any Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the captioned judgment. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s classification of certain products of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal on the limited scope, sofar as it relates to the classification of the petitioner's multi function network printers, by filing Tax Case Revisions before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which were taken on file in T.C.R.Nos.94 to 96 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench, by a common order, dated 10.12.2014, allowed the Tax Case Revisions, and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:- 15. We are not inclined to accept the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, or that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, which have totally misconstrued the classification of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the petitioner, for a sum of ₹ 70,08,501/- and ₹ 1,44,59 676/-. The said letters have been addressed to the Branch Manager, Royal Bank of Scotland, New Delhi Branch, New Delhi, and the letter is termed as Discharge Letter . In the said letter, the Assessing Officer has confirmed to the Bank that they do not have any claims in respect of the aforesaid two bank guarantees, and requested that the said communication may be treated as Discharge Letter, for the purpose of the records of the Bank. Thus, if the Revenue thought fit to re-agitate the matter, obviously, the Assessing Officer would not have given such letters, discharging the bank guarantees. 7. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
