9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi (the Tribunal) has preferred this appeal proposing the following seven questions : "(1) Whether Applicant is entitled to benefit of exemption Notification No. 22/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999, Sr. No. 5, read with Para 121 of the Budget 1998-99 speech applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay v. Delhi Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995 (98) STC 202 (Bom.) or otherwise? (2) If the said exemption Notification were not entitled to the Appellant, whether it tantamounts to double taxation or otherwise as Ship Breakers are paying Sales Tax on sale of ship breaking materials. (3) Whether the tanks in engine room of the ship can be considered as 'machinery' and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in relation to proposed question Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 various grounds were raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal had failed to deal with the same. Accordingly, the appellant was granted time to produce certified copy of the Memorandum of Appeal and grounds filed before the Tribunal. 4.Today, the learned Advocate for the appellant has tendered certified copy of the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal filed before the Tribunal. The same, along with forwarding communication dated 6th April, 2005, are taken on record. On going through the same, prima facie, it appears that the grievance made by the appellant seems to be correct. 5.In the circumstances, the following substantial question of law arises for determination : "Whether on the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deal with the said grounds. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the Tribunal committed an error in law in not disposing of all the grounds raised before it while deciding the appeal. It is not as if the grounds which have been not dealt with are mere aspects of the issue which is already decided by the Tribunal. As can be seen from the grounds itself they raise separate independent issues. The Tribunal has thus failed to dispose of the appeal in entirety. 8.In the result, the question is answered in the negative, that is to say, the Tribunal was not justified in law in not dealing with the other grounds of appeal raised before it and the impugned order cannot be said to be a complete order. The matter is hence restored to the file o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
