2008 (8) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....position was granted by the Department. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of tax on the bricks. The only dispute raised by the Department is with regard to the coal which was purchased by the dealer-opposite party against form XXXI. While framing the assessment order for the assessment year 1989-90 the assessing authority found that the dealer-opposite party was entitled to import the coal to the extent of 400 metric tons in respect of the two assessment years, i.e., 1988-89 and 1989-90. In these two assessment years the dealer-opposite party has imported 803.010 metric tons of coal as against 400 metric tons for which he was authorised. Rejecting the disclosed purchase price of the coal, the best judgement assessment order was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t appellate authority?" Heard Shri K.M. Sahai, learned standing counsel. None is present on behalf of the dealer-opposite party. The Department has filed an affidavit of service. The service is held sufficient. The learned standing counsel in support of the revision submits two points. Firstly, he submits that since the order of the first appellate authority was passed on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the dealer-opposite party and the Department, there was no occasion to file a second appeal. Elaborating the argument, he submits that on the facts of the present case, the dealer-opposite party could not be termed as an aggrieved person. Secondly, if the Tribunal was of the view that the appellate authority committed illegalit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not sold in the same form and condition but consumed it for manufacturing the bricks, therefore, no tax could have been levied thereunder. Having given careful consideration to the argument of the learned standing counsel, I find sufficient force therein. If, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessment order relates to 18 months, it should have been sustained at least for 12 months. The setting aside of the assessment order as a whole cannot be justified. If there was any confusion or doubt, the matter either should have been remanded to the first appellate authority or a remand report should have been called for from the authority concerned. So far as the second ground taken by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has overlo....