TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 grants Appellant restoration request, sets case for regular hearing, addresses assessable value exclusion.</h1> <h3>COMPTEK LABORATORIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-IV</h3> COMPTEK LABORATORIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-IV - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 179 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Challenge to the ex parte order dated 4-2-2005 by the Appellant.- Consideration of written submissions and grounds raised by the Appellant.- Request for exclusion of exempted goods from assessable value.- Application for restoration based on precedents.- Opposition by the Revenue to the ROM application.- Decision to recall the order and set the case for regular hearing.Analysis:The Appellant challenged the ex parte order dated 4-2-2005, citing various grounds. Firstly, they contended that despite the presence of their partner in court, the order inaccurately stated that no one appeared for the Appellants. Additionally, the Appellant claimed that their written submissions were not considered during the order, emphasizing specific details such as separate office premises and telephone connections from the related party. They argued that the Tribunal failed to address all the grounds in their appeal memorandum, especially regarding the exclusion of additional considerations like excise duty. Furthermore, they highlighted the need to exclude the value of exempted goods from the assessable value, which was not acknowledged in the previous order.The Appellant sought the recall of the order based on legal precedents, referencing cases where restoration of appeals rejected ex parte was allowed by higher courts and tribunals. In response, the Revenue opposed the Appellant's application for review. However, after considering both sides, examining the records, and referring to a relevant Tribunal order, the Tribunal found it reasonable to recall the order dated 4-2-2005. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the ROM application, setting the case for regular hearing on 4-5-2005. This decision allowed the Appellant an opportunity to present their arguments and address the grounds raised in their appeal, ensuring a fair hearing and due process in the legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 