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>Court emphasizes full disclosure, proper pleading, and reasons for decisions. Previous orders set aside, modification application restored.</h1> The Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of parties presenting all relevant facts and issues at the appropriate stages of legal ... Failure to deposit the penalty amount as ordered under Section 35F - Held that:- The Appellant does not appear to have brought to the attention of the authorities at earlier stage the dropping of the proceedings against the original assessee on 16.12.2013. The fact was mentioned for the first time in the Miscellaneous Application. The earlier interim order of the Tribunal dated 3.9.2014 directing deposit of entire penalty amount of ₹ 27,000/-. Therefore could not be faulted with. But if a Miscellaneous Application was then filed referring to order dated 16.12.2013, dropping the proceedings against the original assessee and that therefore the order for deposit of penalty passed against the Appellant was not sustainable, the Tribunal while dismissing the modification application, on 16.10.2014, was albeit, required to deal with the issue even briefly by recording its satisfaction alongwith reasons. It has repeatedly been held that reasons are part of the principles of natural justice which apply with equal force to Courts and Tribunals. It is trite law that justice must not only be done but it must appear to be done. A litigant approaching the Court with a perceived grievance according to his understanding has a right to be told why his perception was not correct. He cannot be confronted with the conclusions without telling him the reasons. Modification application restored to file for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law Issues:Challenge to final order dismissing appeal for failure to deposit penalty amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Failure to bring to the attention of authorities the dropping of proceedings against original assessee. Lack of proper pleading by the Appellant leading to dismissal of appeal.Analysis:The judgment concerns an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the final order dismissing the substantive appeal due to the Appellant's failure to deposit the penalty amount as ordered under Section 35F of the Act. The Appellant was penalized for abetting in clandestine activities related to the removal of MS Ingot. The Appellant failed to mention before the authorities that the proceedings against the original assessee had been dropped on a specific date, only raising this point in a miscellaneous application after the penalty order. The Tribunal had directed the deposit of the penalty without considering the dropped proceedings against the original assessee, leading to the Appellant's appeal.The Respondent argued that the Appellant's failure to raise the dropped proceedings earlier demonstrated a lack of vigilance in protecting its interests. The Respondent contended that the Appellant should have presented this crucial fact before the Commissioner and the Tribunal. The Court noted that the Appellant's first mention of the dropped proceedings was in a miscellaneous application after the penalty order, indicating a lack of due diligence in the initial stages of the proceedings. The Court highlighted the importance of parties properly presenting their case before the authorities and emphasized that orders cannot be faulted for deficiencies in pleading by the parties.The Court acknowledged partial agreement with the Respondent's submissions, recognizing the Appellant's failure to timely bring up the dropped proceedings against the original assessee. However, the Court found fault with the Tribunal's dismissal of the modification application without adequately addressing the issue raised in the miscellaneous application. The Court stressed the necessity for reasons to be provided when dismissing applications, citing the principles of natural justice and the importance of justice not only being done but also appearing to be done. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders dated 16.10.2014 and 5.5.2015, restoring the modification application for fresh disposal on its merits in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, highlighting the importance of parties presenting all relevant facts and issues at the appropriate stages of legal proceedings to ensure a fair and just outcome. The judgment underscores the significance of proper pleading and the requirement for authorities to provide reasons for their decisions to uphold the principles of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
