2008 (8) TMI 805

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommon order passed by the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated March 26, 2003, the present writ petitions have been filed. By the impugned order, the STAT (Additional Bench), Madurai, in MTSA Nos. 461 of 2002, 462 of 2002, 463 of 2002, 465 of 2002, 467 of 2002 and 478 of 2002 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner/State and confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in all the six appeals. The appeals filed by the petitioner/State before the STAT relates to two assessees. They are M/s. Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd., Velimalai, who are respondents in MTSA Nos. 461 of 2002 and 467 of 2002 and M/s. Vaikundam Rubber Company Ltd. Alancholai, who are respondents in MTSA Nos. 462 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pect of one party and they cannot file an appeal against the very same common order in respect of another party unless there is any points of distinction. In this context the learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Amar Bitumen and Allied Products P. Ltd. reported in [2007] 9 RC 40. He stated that though the said judgment related to Central excise, the principles laid down therein are of general nature. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the following passage found in pages 42 and 43 which is as follows: "Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Bitumen Products (India) [1999] 107 ELT 58 (CEGA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the decision of the STAT had become final. This self-serving letter sent by the department cannot be taken note of by this court because the DCTO, Thuckalay, had passed a final order implementing the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed by the Tribunal and has also ordered for refund to the assessee which was also not denied by the State. If the department was sincere in filing an appeal, they ought to have filed an appeal in the year 2004. It is not open to them to contend after four years before this court that they are still contemplating to file appeals especially without any reservation, they have implemented the order and also ordered for refund which had also been paid to the assessee. The petitioner be....