2014 (3) TMI 568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Kureshi) 1. The appellant assessee has challenged the judgement of VAT tribunal dated 30.8.2013 rejecting the second appeal filed before the said tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that against the order of assessment passed by the competent authority, appellant preferred First Appeal before the Commissioner of Commercial Tax. There was a delay of 836 days in filing such appeal. To c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and confirmed the view of the Commissioner. 3. Before us also learned counsel for the appellant could present only one ground for condonation of delay namely that when the Assessing Officer passed the order the law was not clear. It was only when the tribunal rendered its judgement in case of Reliance Industries that interpretation of the statutory provisions became clearer. Issue being covere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there is sufficient explanation or not. In a well known decision, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997(89) ELT 247(SC), considered various issues including the right of an assessee to seek refund of duty on the basis of decision rendered in another case. It was held that it is not open to any person to make a refund claim o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t petition or to institute a suit within three years of such alleged discovery of mistake of law. A person, whether a manufacturer or importer, must fight his own battle and must succeed or fail in such proceedings. Once the assessment of levy has become final in his case, he cannot seek to reopen it nor can he claim refund without reopening such assessment/order on the ground of a decision in ano....