9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that Tribunal erred in counting the period of limitation by taking into account the period of pendency of the ROM application, is acceptable - judgment of the Apex Court in Ayyanar Spinning’s case is squarely applicable – petition is allowed by way of remand to tribunal - 13421 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2008 - T. Meena Kumari and Ramesh Ranganathan, JJ. Shri S. Ravi, for the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original No. 56 of 2003 dated 6-10-2003, which was appealed against by the petitioner and others before the Appellate Tribunal, which passed Final Order Nos. 91 to 97 of 2004, remanding the matter. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission, which by order dated 31-3-2005 [2007 (220) E.L.T. 707 (Sett. Comm.)] rejected the application filed by the petitioner and, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia, appearing for the respondent. 4. It is contended the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed the ROM application, within time, but the Tribunal erred in counting the period of limitation by taking into account the period of pendency of the ROM application, which is not in terms of Sec. 254 of the Income tax. Act. Contending so, he relied on a decision of the Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
