TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the order-in-original which was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 29.01.2004. 2. The Tribunal was firstly approached for waiver of a condition of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of taxes pending the Appeal and on such an application the Tribunal made an order on 24.05.2004, copy of which is at Annexure-I. The Appeal was then heard finally on 31.07.2013. 3. Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Assessee, would submit that detailed written submissions were tendered on 02.04.2013 and same were very much before the Tribunal. The issues were highlighted and under several heads. First was with regard to revenue neutrality, second was with regard to the demand and which has been confirmed by the order-in-original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or reject them. Mr.Shah would complain that in a five paragraph cryptic order, out of which paragraphs 1 to 4 contain the facts and referred to the oral submissions, the Tribunal has disposed of the entire appeal and against the Assessee. In the submission of Mr.Shah this unsatisfactory and perfunctory manner of disposal of the Appeal by the Tribunal, which is the last fact finding authority, raises a substantial question of law. 6. Mr. Bhate , learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, would submit that if one peruses the order-in-original, then, the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The grievance raised pertains to the form and not the substance. Had the same conclusion been reached by an elaborate process of reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was required to consider the issues raised in the Appeal in depth and render a complete finding. If a particular issue was pressed or was given up that should be indicated in the order of the Tribunal. We would expect the Tribunal, which is manned by both judicial and technical experts, to be aware of the seriousness of the adjudication and not take up the assignment lightly and casually. There is no specific target which has to be achieved nor could the Tribunal be expected to decide particular number of appeals during a calender year. Therefore, undue haste is not at all called for. That results in miscarriage of justice and in a given case would result in vital issues of both sides being concluded in most unsatisfactory manner. We would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not holding that the demand made pursuant to the SCN1 for the period April 1999 to November 2001 of Rs. 33 ,66,574 /was barred under Section 11A of the Act? (f) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the Appellant did not raise contention of revenue neutral and time bar at the hearing of the appeal? (g) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal only upon deciding the main contention of the Appellant? 10. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties this Appeal is disposed of finally. Finding that both sides deserve to be given a....