2016 (1) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd, M/s Mandovi Metals Pvt Ltd, M/s F M Instrumentation, M/s Goa Ispat Ltd, M/s Grand Organics Pvt Ltd, M/s Prateek Alloys Pvt Ltd, M/s Pentair Water India Pvt Ltd, M/s Coral Clinical System, M/s Apex Packaging Product Pvt Ltd, M/s Ambey Metallic Ltd, M/s Sandhya Enterprises, M/s Elin Electronic Ltd, M/s Ellenabad Steel Pvt Ltd,  M/s Mandovi Casting Pvt Ltd ,M/s Maa Durga Enterprises, M/s Rututek Enterprises, M/s Rivon Enginnering Co, M/s Titanor Components Ltd, M/s Kundil Alloys Pvt Ltd, M/s Essel Propack Ltd, M/s Alpha Industries For the Appellant : Shri V K Agarwal, Addl. Commr. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri C S Birandar & Shri Mahesh Raichandani, Advs ORDER Per P S Pruthi The issue in these cases is that there is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been decided by the Delhi High Court in the case of Japan Airlines (supra). The Hon'ble High Court held that:- "10.9 In our view, the duty discharged by the Committee of Commissioners is purely administrative and, cannot be, categorized as a quasi-judicial function since, it does not decide the lis between the parties, that is, the Revenue and the assessee. There is neither a de novo investigation of facts nor is a hearing required to be given by the committee. All that the Committee of Commissioners does is to ascertain as to whether or not the adjudication order is impregnated with aspects which go against the interest of the Revenue, and if so, whether or not they are already covered by decisions rendered by superior court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioners. It was in these circumstances, the High Court of Karnataka held that the review of its earlier decision of the Committee of Commissioners at the instance of Chief Commissioner is one without the authority of law. 5.2 We find that the law only provides for review the order by a Committee of Commissioners. The law does not provide that the Chief Commissioner can sit over the order of the Committee of Commissioners and given further directions to file appeal or to reconsider the matter. Whereas in the case of Madura Coats (supra), the Hon'ble High Court found that there is no explicit provision in law to prevent from constituting a fresh review committee for deciding the matter which has already been decided. In the words o....