9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, which has become final too, is bound to be adhered to by the authorities subordinate to the Tribunal. Judgments or orders inter parties cannot be ignored. Viewed in that perspective, Ext.P1 can primarily be seen as a binding decision for the third respondent. When binding decisions are pointed out and the same are not relied upon by the authority to render its decision, it will tantamount to an error apparent on the face of the record, as held in HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI [ 2007 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] - Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed in the said judgment that the Tribunal in that case was justified in exercising the power under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IAN THOMAS, J. Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order as well as Ext.P9 communication issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the rectification petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P7 order. Petitioner is engaged in the processing of raw fish, manufacture of frozen fish and its export. Claiming that the activity carried on by the petitioner amounts to manufacture and since the end product was claimed to be exported out of the country, petitioner had not registered itself under the Central Excise Act, since according to the petitioner, the activity did not attract serve tax. 2. However, petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice on 16.04.2007 proposing to treat the activity of the petitioner as a service. Pursuant to the obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Ext.P7 order. Without even granting an opportunity of hearing, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P9 communication dated 25.2.2021, intimated the petitioner that the request for rectification of orders in appeal will amount to a revision of the order and that the same is not permissible under law. 5. I have heard Adv.Kuryan Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Sreelal N. Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. It is noticed that Ext.P1 is an order of the jurisdictional Tribunal relating to the petitioner on an identical issue for an earlier assessment year. When identical issues are raised, that too by the same assessee for a subsequent year, the order of the jurisdictional Tribunal, which has become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
