Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondents were bound by their earlier recorded submission to consider the petitioner's application for special rate of value addition on merits and were precluded from raising the objection that the application was time-barred under Notification No. 30/2008-C.E. dated 10.06.2008.
Analysis: The earlier order between the parties recorded a statement on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner's account would be settled with regard to the special rate of value addition and that the amount would be adjusted against the demand notice. That statement was accepted and the petitioner's grievance was treated as redressed. In the present proceeding, the respondents sought to avoid that commitment by contending that the application for special rate was made beyond the time prescribed under the notification. The Court held that this objection could not be reopened because the respondents had not raised it when the earlier submission was recorded, the submission was understood to mean that the application would be examined on merits, and the petitioner had acted on that understanding.
Conclusion: The respondents were held bound to consider the petitioner's request for special rate of value addition in accordance with law and were estopped from relying on limitation.