2014 (12) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cture of aluminium conductors and was assessed to tax. For the assessment year 1987-88, the authorities of the Central Excise Department levied excise duty of Rs. 45,09,366/-. The respondent claimed exemption in respect of the said amount under the Act, as expenditure for the assessment year 1982-83. The same was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The activity of the respondent was taken over by M/s.Anam Machinery Fabricators (P) Limited, Kadiam with effect from 01.04.1984. After the business activity of the respondent ceased, and it was taken over by M/s.Anam Machinery Fabricators (P) Limited, this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the levy of excise duty. On the basis of that, the amount was refunded. O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 31.03.1998 and the order of assessment is vitiated. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior Standing Counsel for the Department submits that assuming that there was any procedural lapse in the service of notice, dated 31.03.1998, the same stood cured, once the partners of the respondent-firm appeared through their representations in February 2000. He contends that the Tribunal has taken hypertechincal view of the matter and that in turn resulted in a substantial amount, representing the income of the respondent, escaping the income tax. He contends that soon after the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed, steps were initiated against the company, which took over the business of the respondent and it was only in the year 1997, it em....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The third is that a sum of Rs. 45,09,366/- was claimed as expenditure for the assessment year 1982-83 by the respondent and the same was allowed. The fourth is that the said amount represented the excise duty and in a writ petition, this Court held that levy of that amount as excise duty is impermissible in law. On the basis of the facts referred to above, the Assessing officer could have certainly brought the amount under tax, once it was held that the respondent was not liable to pay excise duty representing that amount. Even if the respondent did not exist, the Assessing Officer could have proceeded against the partners, duly serving notices upon them. It was not even the case of the Department that it is not aware of the factum of d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... however, two partners of the firm are assesses in the same unit and they submitted their returns on 29.12.1997 and 28.01.998 i.e., much after the order, dated 15.04.1997 was passed by the Commissioner. Still, efforts were not made to serve notices upon those two assessees, before the expiry of the limitation. Before the Assessing Officer, two partners of the respondent-firm appeared and submitted representations on 11.02.2000, pointing out the serious defect in the proceedings. However, he brushed aside them with some reasoning of his own. The Tribunal took note of the fact that (a) the issuance of a notice straight away through affixture is not proper; (b) no efforts were made to send the notices to the partners through registered post....