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 revisional order extending time for furnishing proof of payment to the fertilisers pool equalisation fund covered the September 1976 clearances, and whether the consequent duty demand could survive.
Analysis: The revisional order, read with the exemption notification and the later notification empowering extension of time, showed an intention to cover clearances made from 1-6-1976 to 30-11-1976. The omission to specifically mention September 1976 was treated as an accidental omission or clerical error. Such an error could not be allowed to defeat the substantive relief granted by the revisional authority, and the consequential demand based on a literal reading of the omission could not stand.
Conclusion: The September 1976 clearances were held to be covered by the extended period, and the consequential duty demand was quashed. The decision was in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the revisional order was read as including September 1976 clearances, and the consequential demand notice and demand order were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: An accidental omission in a revisional or administrative order cannot override the evident substance of the relief granted, and a consequential demand founded solely on such omission is unsustainable.