9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given, the authorities would decide whether or not to proceed. The petitioner is entitled to raise the legal contention relying on their interpretation to sub-sections (4) and (4A) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The authority would examine factual aspects and legal contention including the question whether conditions of sub-section (4) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 are satisfied - Presently, no show cause has been issued to the petitioner. Proceedings under sub-section (4) of 73 of the Finance Act have not been initiated. Counsel for the respondents states that authority would not normally have any objection to appearance by an authorized representative. However, in case any distinct issue and query is required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (4A) to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, petitioner submits that the said provision overrides and prevails over sub-section (4). Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10th March, 2017, in paragraph 9.2 states that on conclusion of proceedings in terms of sub-section (4A) to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, an intimation would be sent to the assessee in writing and there would be no need to pass an adjudication order. It is also stated that there would be no need to undertake a review of such conclusion or proceedings. Petitioner relies on the judgment of Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory versus Collector of Central Excise, A.P., 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC). 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide whether or not to proceed. 6. Judgment in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) arises from an appeal filed by the assessee pursuant to issue of show cause notice and an adjudication order passed thereafter. No decision has been cited, where issue of notice raising a query has been struck down. 7. We would hesitate and not act as an authority deciding the notices on facts and merits. Court would normally not act as an inquiry officer or investigator when power in this regard is conferred on the authorities. The petitioner, we would observe, is entitled to raise the legal contention relying on their interpretation to sub-sections (4) and (4A) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The authority would examine factual aspects a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke the task of examining and adjudicating assertions and counter-assertions on merits notwithstanding the fact that the authority itself is to form any opinion and the matter is pending consideration and decision. 10. Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner would depute an authorized representative to answer the queries raised and appear. Counsel for the respondents states that authority would not normally have any objection to appearance by an authorized representative. However, in case any distinct issue and query is required to be answered by a specific person then notices/summons would be issued to the concerned person. 11. Recording the aforesaid, we decline to interfere with the notices/summons iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
