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 denies remand, sets detailed hearing, cautions on interim observations.</h1> <h3>HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. Versus C.C. & S.T., BANGALORE</h3> HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. Versus C.C. & S.T., BANGALORE - 2015 (315) E.L.T. 273 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Valuation of imported computer products and parts.2. Alleged non-consideration of rejoinders by the Commissioner.3. Alleged haste in passing the impugned orders.4. Principles of natural justice.5. Request for remand to the Commissioner.Detailed Analysis:1. Valuation of Imported Computer Products and Parts:The primary issue in the appeals was the valuation of imported computer products and parts by M/s. Hewlett Packard India Sales Ltd. (HPISPL). The investigation led to a confirmed demand of over Rs. 961 crores against HPISPL, along with penalties imposed on HPISPL and other appellants.2. Alleged Non-Consideration of Rejoinders by the Commissioner:The appellants contended that the Commissioner did not consider their detailed rejoinders submitted on 27-3-2012 before passing the impugned orders on 30-3-2012 and 31-3-2012. They argued that the Commissioner could not have adequately considered all the points in such a short time. The learned special counsel for the Revenue countered this by stating that all points were considered during the extensive hearings and that the Commissioner had acknowledged the written submissions in the impugned order.3. Alleged Haste in Passing the Impugned Orders:The appellants argued that the orders were passed in undue haste, drawing parallels with the Orkay Silk Mills case, where an order was allegedly pre-determined and passed without proper consideration. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had conducted detailed hearings and provided soft copies of the personal hearing records, suggesting that the Commissioner had sufficient time to prepare the order.4. Principles of Natural Justice:The appellants claimed a violation of the principles of natural justice, asserting that the Commissioner did not wait for the corrected version of the personal hearing records before passing the orders. The Tribunal, however, observed that the Commissioner had gone beyond the usual requirements by providing soft copies of the hearing records and that the detailed hearings allowed the Commissioner to consider all submissions adequately.5. Request for Remand to the Commissioner:Initially, the appellants requested a remand to the Commissioner for a detailed order considering all points in the rejoinders. The Tribunal, however, decided against remanding the matter, emphasizing the need to hear the case in detail to ensure justice. The Tribunal also noted that during the stay application hearing, it had already decided that there was no need for a remand based on the principles of natural justice.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be heard finally rather than remanding it to the Commissioner. The appeals were scheduled for a detailed hearing from 6-4-2015 to 28-4-2015, with the Tribunal emphasizing that none of the interim observations should be taken as conclusions on the merits of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
