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 accepts appeals, orders Commissioner to comply with High Court directive</h1> <h3>GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., (ADJ.), NEW DELHI</h3> GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., (ADJ.), NEW DELHI - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 385 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Appeal against duty demand, penalty, and violation of stay order.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an order confirming a duty demand, penalty, and violation of a stay order. The appellants sought waiver of the pre-deposit condition during the argument on stay applications. The appellant's counsel argued that the order was passed in contravention of a stay order by the High Court of Rajasthan, making it legally unsustainable. The counsel contended that the Commissioner failed to supply all relied upon documents despite requests, leading to a writ petition and subsequent stay order by the High Court. The Commissioner proceeded with the adjudication order without supplying the documents, violating the stay order and principles of natural justice. The appellant requested a remand for de novo adjudication after compliance with the High Court's direction and the opportunity to cross-examine relevant witnesses.The respondent's counsel supported the impugned order, citing that it was passed before the stay order and that the High Court's final order did not direct the supply of documents. The respondent argued that the signing of the order was a formality and pressed for the dismissal of the appeals. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's actions violated the undertaking given to the High Court, as the order was signed during the stay order period. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the order came into existence before the signing date, emphasizing that an order must be signed to be executable. Due to the violation of the undertaking and failure to supply relied upon documents, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained. Therefore, the appeals were accepted, and the matters were remanded back to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication, with a directive to supply the documents as per the High Court's order and allow the appellant to cross-examine witnesses.
TaxTMI 