9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2049 of 2016 under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Act registered as Complaint Case No.7020 of 2016 (Union of India Versus Shri Kulkant K. Gahoi and others), pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut so far as it relates to the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is Director of M/s. Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. (M/s KPPPL). The company was engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Gutkha for which the applicant has obtained all requisite registrations. The applicant has regularly paid the Central excise Duty on the clearances made by him and also filing regular returns with Central Excise department. The officers of the Director General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that despite order of this Court the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 31.03.2015 confirmed the demand of Rs. 118,98,82,742/-. The company again filed Writ Tax No.686 of 2015 being Single Judge of this Court which was disposed of on 27.08.2015 with the direction to the Commissioner to reconsider his decision dated 31.03.2015 and until fresh decision is taken on merit in accordance with law by the Adjudicating Authority i.e. Commissioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. The order to the following effect was passed: "However, on the date when the order dated 01.04.2015 was passed, the petitioner was not aware of the order which was passed by the respondents on 31.03.2015 and in fact the department it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case may be, stay applications were pending before the appellate authority prior to the commencement of Finance (No.2) Act, 2014." It is well settled law that when an amendment is made the intendment of the legislature is to make an amendment prospectively unless it is specifically to be applied retrospectively. In this case the amendment has not been made retrospectively. A stipulation to that effect is usually contained in the amendment itself. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 14.08.2015 has refused to go into that question and has simply relied on its own previous decision. It has not taken into consideration at all the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganesh Yadav(Supra). During the course of hearing of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant judgements passed by the higher judicial forum including Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the similar issues." It was observed that the revenue has not taken stand whether the adjudicating authority proposes to rely on the statements of 29 witnesses in respect of whom cross-examination opportunity has yet not been granted to the petitioner. The proceedings cannot be allowed to conclude in such uncertain facts. Counter and rejoinder affidavits were called for. The matter was directed to be listed after six weeks. In the meanwhile it was directed that proceedings shall go on but no final orders shall be passed by the adjudicating authority. The said writ petition is still pending before this Court. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
