2014 (8) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el for the petitioner-firm and the respondent-Department. The following questions of law are made out in this revision petition: "(1) Whether ex parte decision of the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case could not be countenanced for want of service of summons on assessee and appeal needs to be restored to the file of the Tax Board for decision afresh affording opportunity of he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Tax Board justified in sustaining the penalty over and above 30 per cent of the value of the goods as prescribed in section 76(6) of the Act of 2003?" The case of the petitioner-firm is that even though the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax Department, Bharatpur vide order dated January 23, 2007 had set aside the imposition of penalty on the petitionerfirm under section 76(6) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... simpliciter and not the same khandsari sugar. The counsel has submitted that this view of the respondent-Department is wholly without foundation inasmuch as other than sugar manufactured by the vacuum process other kind of sugar otherwise partakes the character of khandsari sugar and consequently, there was no declaration in the documents accompanying the goods in transit as alleged by the Depart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide the order dated January 23, 2007, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. A reply to the revision petition has been filed. Perusal of para 5 of the reply to the revision petition indicates that the averments in the revision petition with regard to the order dated August 24, 2009 being passed by the Tax Board without due service have not been denied. Consequently, without going into the merits of....