9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of cotton yarn, man-made yarn, cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics as well as the processing amongst other activities. For the period from October, 1994, to February, 1997, the appellant was served with 14 show-cause notices for recovery of differential duty of approximately Rs. 50 lakhs. The said show-cause notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II vide order-in-original Nos. 781/398/97 to 794/411/97 dated November 12, 1997, confirming the demands covered thereunder along with interest. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000. There being incorrect computation, he directed the Range Superintendent to verify figures and work out the fresh demand. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for filing the appeal had already expired and that delay in filing the appeal was not condoned by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Aggrieved by the order in appeal dated February 25, 1999, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Mumbai (for short, "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal vide its order dated November 29, 1999, held that the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within time and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter back to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law. On remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated June 29, 2001, upheld the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By subsequent letter dated November 22, 2004, the appellant was again called upon to pay the interest of Rs. 11,58,647 failing which it was informed that recovery of Government dues shall be made under section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite repeated letters when the appellant failed to pay interest amount of Rs. 11,58,647 the Superintendent of Central Excise vide letter dated September 29, 2005, again called upon the appellant to pay the interest (Government dues) immediately. It was thereafter that the appellant on October 10, 2005, sent a letter to the Commissioner of Central Excise for reconsideration of the matter. The Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated October 19, 2005, informed the appellant that the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been so held ultimately by the Tribunal. Therefore, the designated authority ought to have considered the matter. The High Court noted that the appellant kept quiet and did not take steps in challenging the order dated February 25, 1999, passed by the designated authority rejecting the declaration made by the appellant under the KVSS for some time but filed an appeal against the order dated February 25, 1999, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal as time barred by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated November 29, 1999, the Tribunal allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind the above object, we have to examine section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme, which was different from appeals under section 246, revisions under section 264, appeals under section 260A, etc., of the Income-tax Act and similar provisions under the Wealth-tax Act. Under the Income-tax Act, there is a difference between appeals, revisions and references. However, those differences were obliterated and appeals, revisions and references were put on par under section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme. The object behind section 95(i)(c) in putting on par appeals, references and revisions was to put an end to litigation in various forms and at various stages under the Income-tax Act/Wealth-tax Act and, therefore, the rulings on the scope of appeals and revisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat taxes have been recovered by the sale of lands; that amounts have been paid pursuant to the determination by the DA, may be under the orders of the High Court and, therefore, we do not wish to reopen the matter. 14. In the case of Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla v. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 258, this court has held on interpretation of section 95(i)(c) that if the appeal or revision is pending on the date of the filing of the declaration under section 88 of the Scheme, it is not for the DA to hold that the appeal/revision was 'sham', 'ineffective' or 'infructuous' as it has. 15. In the case of Raja Kulkarni v. State of Bombay [1953-54] 5 FJR 677; AIR 1954 SC 73, this court laid down that when a section contemplates pendency of an appeal, what is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
