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 Limits Commissioner's Remand Power under Section 35A</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI Versus JAISU SHIPPING CO. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI Versus JAISU SHIPPING CO. LTD. - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 561 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:- Whether the appellate Commissioner had the power of remand when the impugned order was passed.- Whether the original authority had examined the issue of unjust enrichment.Analysis:- The case involved a refund application by the respondent, which was sanctioned but ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant challenged this decision, raising contentions regarding the examination of unjust enrichment by the original authority and the power of remand by the appellate Commissioner.- The Judicial Member emphasized the power of remand, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mil India Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Noida. The Counsel for the respondent referred to decisions supporting the appellate Commissioner's power of remand, such as Commissioner of C.Ex., Pondicherry v. Amaravathy Chemicals Ltd. and Commissioner of C.Ex., Kolkata v. Gluconate Health Ltd.- The Tribunal observed that the decisions cited by the Counsel were based on pre-amended provisions and held that the power of remand by the Commissioner (A) had been withdrawn by amending Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mil India Ltd. to set aside the impugned order passed without jurisdiction.- Regarding the examination of unjust enrichment, the Tribunal found that crucial facts disclosed by the assessee were overlooked by the original authority. Documents like a letter from the Deputy Conservator of Kandla Port Trust, Balance Sheet, and Profit & Loss Account were not adequately considered. The Tribunal directed the original authority to re-examine the issue, allowing the assessee to produce additional documents like subsequent Balance Sheets and provide a personal hearing opportunity.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal references cited, and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
