9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, the time-limit prescribed under Section 104 (3) is only directory, but however, the time as well as the procedure prescribed under Section 11B applies in full. The limitation of one year as in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would have to be reckoned from 01.04.2017 which is the date on which the assent of the Hon ble President was received. The matter is remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority, who shall verify and pass appropriate orders - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 41025 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41679/2019 - Dated:- 20-12-2019 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. A. Sivaranjani, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. S. Govindarajan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in rejection of the appellant s claim and the findings in the above Order-in-Original came to be upheld by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai, vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 494/2018 (CTA-II) dated 25.10.2018. The appellant has assailed the above Order-in-Appeal by this appeal. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Ms. A. Sivaranjani, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the assessee-appellant and at the outset submitted that the very same issue has been considered by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal and therefore, the issue is no more res integra. In this regard, she placed reliance on the decisions of this Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of : (i) M/s. Roop Automotives Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Bench has inter alia concluded that procedure is the handmaid of justice which is meant to serve justice rather than defeat the purpose, following the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 20978 of 2017 dated 30.04.2019 , in the following words : 8.4 In this context, it is very useful to refer to a recent judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 20978 of 2017 dated 30.04.2019 and at paragraph 10, their Lordships observe as under : 10.Even otherwise, we are of the view that . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholly inequitable. ...Justice is the goal of jurisprudence -processual, as much as substantive. 29.In State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari [(1976) 1 SCC719 : 1976 SCC (L S) 118] the Court approved in no unmistakable terms the approach of moderating into wholesome directions what is regarded as mandatory on the principle that: (SCC p. 720) Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. In Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India [(1984) 3 SCC46] the Court reiterated the need for interpreting a part of the adjective law dealing wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 104 would become redundant if such an artificial fetter is allowed to prevent the administration of beneficial legislation, by which the very purpose gets defeated. Hence, shall‟ could and is only directory. 9.3 It is also for the other reason, as observed by me in earlier paragraphs, that Section 104 is not a self-contained one even though it is a special provision since filing application for refund and the Form required thereto not being prescribed, it rests on Section 11B and the rules and regulations therein. It is a special provision for extending the benefit and hence, when the eligibility otherwise is not questioned, the benefit cannot be denied. It cannot be said that only the limitation clause applies an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
