9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of each case and the judgments cited by the appellant cannot be made applicable automatically . Once the litigant before the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, then a speaking order would require the Tribunal to consider those decisions and state how and why the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. - In the absence of this exercise is being done, the impugned order itself suffer from being a non speaking order. We find that where Authorities like the Tribunal functioning within the State of Maharashtra exercise jurisdiction in breach of principles of natural justice or in flagrant disregard of the law of precedents by not referring the issue to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s own case by orders dated 20th September 2016 (supra) and 21st March 2017 (supra) had held that extended period of limitation could not be invoked on account of revenue neutrality. This after holding in its earlier orders in case of the petitioner that where duty is payable by one unit and credit is taken by other unit belonging to the same entity, the shortfall in payment of duty would be revenue neutral exercise. Thus no intent to evade tax could be attributed in such a case to invoke. The two aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal dated 20th September 2016 and 21st March 2017 in its own case were noticed by the Tribunal and yet completely ignored, so as to take a contrary view in the impugned order to hold the demands cannot be set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. In fact, the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Shivhare (supra) has specifically recorded the above exception. Moreover, in cases involving breach of natural justice per se not requiring application of any of the statutory provisions, would not warrant dismissing the petition on grounds of alternate remedy. Further, if the impugned order is contrary to well settled principles of law, then we may suo moto exercise our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5] In this case, it is clear from the impugned order of the Tribunal that the petitioners had placed reliance upon the two orders dated 20th September 2016 (supra) and 21st March 2017 (supra) passed by Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
