9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per: D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)]. - The appellant-revenue has proposed the following two questions: (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the respondent by holding that it cannot be appropriate and legal to recover dues of money due to the respondent on the ground that it has a legal entity different from M/s. Chokshi Tubes Company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignments of goods exported in December, 2000. Simultaneously, sums of Rs. 40,70,998/- and Rs. 16,52,899.60 were pending recovery since 1998, being payable by M/s. Chokshi Tubes Company Limited (the Tubes Company). That the Tubes Company and one Sandvik AB of Sweden floated a joint venture on 10-9-1996 and for the said purpose promoted a new company called Sandvik Chokshi Private Limited wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) can also be made applicable to the facts of the case. 3. In the impugned order dated 28-3-2007 the Tribunal has found that the joint venture company is a new company different from the Tubes Company and merely because the Tubes Company was initially instrumental in formation of the respondent-assessee company it was not permissible to the revenue to recover the dues of the Tubes Company from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and reference to Rule 230(2) of the Rules as they then stood (which are no longer on the Statute Book) cannot make the said decision applicable in the facts of the present case. 5. In the circumstances, in absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the appeal does not merit acceptance. No question of law, as proposed or otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
