TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies Misc. Application, cites abuse prevention, time-barred claim, and warns against repetitive filings.</h1> The Tribunal rejected the appellants' Misc. Application seeking implementation of a High Court Order, emphasizing prevention of abuse of the Tribunal's ... Tribunal - Inherent powers Issues:1. Consideration of a Misc. Application under special circumstances for the implementation of a High Court Order.2. Entertaining an application after the rejection of appeal by the Apex Court.3. Request for remanding the matter to the original authority based on High Court's judgment.4. Preventing abuse of the process of the Tribunal and exercising power under Rule 41.Issue 1:The appellants filed a Misc. Application seeking implementation of a High Court Order, stating that it is not a regular appeal but a special application due to the guidance from the Tribunal's interim order. The Director of the company reiterated the prayer, emphasizing the Tribunal's inherent power under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The DR opposed the application, citing the rejection of the party's appeal by the Apex Court. The Tribunal examined the submissions and records, noting multiple applications by the appellants post the final disposal of their appeal. The Tribunal observed that the present application was based on the High Court's judgment already considered in earlier applications. Despite the prayer for remanding the matter, the Tribunal rejected the application to prevent abuse of the Tribunal's process, as the previous appeal to the Supreme Court had been dismissed, and subsequent applications seeking rectification were also rejected.Issue 2:The Tribunal addressed the concern of entertaining an application after the rejection of the appeal by the Apex Court. The Tribunal highlighted the history of the case, where the appellants' appeal was dismissed on merits by the Tribunal, and subsequent appeals to the Apex Court and application for reference to the High Court were also rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that repeating applications could not be entertained, and the present application was considered time-barred. It was noted that the Director of the company failed to cite any provision of law authorizing the filing of such an application. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the abuse of the Tribunal's process by the company, rejected the application, clarifying that no further applications of a similar nature would be registered.Issue 3:The appellants requested the Tribunal to remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision in light of the High Court's judgment. However, the Tribunal found that this request was already covered by the main prayer of the appellants and had been previously rejected. The Tribunal reiterated that the application could not be entertained on merits to prevent the abuse of the Tribunal's process. Despite the alternative request for remand, the Tribunal rejected the application, emphasizing that no further applications of a similar nature would be accepted.Issue 4:The Tribunal exercised its power under Rule 41 to prevent the abuse of the Tribunal's process. Despite noting the seriousness of the company's indulgence in such abuse, the Tribunal refrained from taking further steps at that time. The Tribunal clarified that the present application was not a remedy against the previous order and that the company had not provided any legal basis for filing the application. The Tribunal, while rejecting the application, warned that no further applications of a similar nature from the appellants would be entertained, ensuring that the process of the Tribunal was not misused.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
