1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
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>Customs Tribunal decision upheld by High Court; Revenue's appeal dismissed. Department's selective challenge accepted.</h1> The High Court upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Department's selective appeal ... Appeal - single order passed by the Tribunal in two cases - Department has chosen to file appeal only in one case – two cases were similar in nature – Held that: - Statement made by counsel for the respondent is found to be incorrect, then the Department may file an application for recalling this order. Issues:1. Impugned order passed by the Tribunal2. Appeal filed only in one case out of two similar cases3. Acceptance of Tribunal's view by the Department4. Lack of grounds to interfere with the order5. Possibility of filing an application for recalling the orderAnalysis:1. The judgment concerns the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the finding of the Commissioner that the party had received the material and claimed modvat credit based on documents from suppliers. The High Court considered the appeal challenging this order.2. The counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the appeal being filed only in one case out of two similar cases, namely M/s. Raghav Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd. The Department chose to appeal only in the case of M/s. Raghav Alloys Ltd., not in the case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd. The argument was that this selective appeal indicated the Department's acceptance of the Tribunal's view in the case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd.3. The counsel for the appellant could not dispute this fact as there was uncertainty about whether an appeal had been filed in the case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd. challenging the impugned order. The High Court noted this factual position and the lack of clarity regarding the Department's actions in the case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd.4. Considering that the Tribunal disposed of the matters related to both M/s. Raghav Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd. through a single order, and the Revenue did not file an appeal in the case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd., the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the order that the Department had seemingly accepted concerning M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd.5. The judgment concluded by stating that if the statement made by the respondent's counsel was found to be incorrect regarding the Department's actions in the case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd., the Department could file an application for recalling the order. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed based on the analysis of the issues raised during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
