Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (8) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder : - The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is an undertaking of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner is engaged in the construction of bridges and other civil works all over India. As part of its construction activities, the petitioner sets up site/project offices at the site of construction and those site/project offices are temporary in nature and upon completion of the construction activities, such site/project offices are closed. 3.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, by his Order, dated 31st January, 1995, confirmed the demand for Rs. 4,72,535.34 as duty of excise on piles, girders and bracings. By the aforesaid Order he also imposed on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 20,000 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion for restoration of the appeal, but, the said application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution as the notice of hearing of the said application was received by the petitioner on 29th December, 2000 whereas the application for restoration was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 15th December, 2000. Due to the dismissal of its application for restoration, the petitioner on 22nd March, 2001, filed another application for restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal by its impugned order, dated 16th October, 2001, dismissed the application for restoration of Appeal No. E/4388/95 and declined to restore the said appeal while it allowed the restoration of the Appeal No. E-4393/95 on the ground that the Tribunal in its Order had not d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch is located about 20 K.M. away from my office. Since there was no response, I thought that perhaps the telephone was out of order. I also thought that since the notice would have been served on the Corporation, they would contact me. I waited for about a week and in the meanwhile, I again tried to contact them but there was again no response. (f) that ultimately I drove down to the site address to contact them personally but found that their office was now occupied by the local PWD. I was informed by the PWD people that U.P. State Bridge Corporation had moved out once the construction of the bridge was complete. (g) that on hearing this, I concluded that notice could not have been served on them. I then looked up the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ey could not decide it themselves. Subsequently when I received instruction from U.P. State Bridge Corporation to send the case papers to Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, I sent the case papers to Shri Jain in Mumbai. Subsequently, when I received Order No. C-II/494-495/99-WZB, dated 5-3-1999. I also sent the same to Shri Vipin Jain".6.The notice of hearing of the appeal was issued to the petitioner as well as to its counsel. From the affidavit of the counsel representing the petitioner, it is clear that after completion of the project in Goa, the petitioner had closed its office in Goa. Thus, the petitioner was not served with the notice regarding the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was admitted on 5th June, 1995 and was listed for hearing for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore the Tribunal on the date of hearing. The impugned Order, therefore, of the Tribunal, dated 25th January, 1999, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the impugned Order, dated 31st August, 2001, insofar as it dismissed the application of the petitioner for restoration of Appeal No. E/4388/95 are wholly unsustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7.We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and quash and set aside the impugned Orders as indicated above and direct the Tribunal to decide the Appeal of the petitioner No. E/4388/95 afresh within 12 weeks from today with due notice to the petitioner of the date of hearing of the Appeal. Rule made absolute on the above terms, with no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates