TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief, but prayed for such relief in the Appeal filed by the Department in filing cross-objection before the Commissioner (Appeals), but if the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the same, whether CEGAT can grant such relief to the party, or otherwise? 2. At the time of hearing of the cross-objection filed by the party, if he prayed for the relief in written submissions, before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the written submissions, whether CEGAT can grant such relief prayed in the written submissions to the party, or otherwise? 3. If the Assessing Officer failed to extend the benefit of exemption Notification, which the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed with the vessel under Chapter Heading 89.08 of the Customs Tariff Act. The remaining demand to the extent of Rs. 35,458.81 relating to bunker, fuel and oil was confirmed and assessed under the appropriate heading. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the order of adjudication dropping the demand on stores. The applicant-assessee filed cross-objections before Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to the demand to the extent of Rs. 35,458.81. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and also the cross-objections filed by the assessee. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi which came to be registered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged the said assessment by way of a cross appeal filed in 1999. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee came to be dismissed. 6. Assailing the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, Mr. Maru, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the question of law arose as to whether it was open to a party to claim benefit of exemption notification, if the same was claimed during proceedings pending before an appellate authority. Mr. D.N. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the entire case of the applicant-assessee was misconceived as there was no provision for filing cross-objection before the Commissioner (Appeals), and in absence of such a right being available to the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llector of C. Ex. v. Ramdev Tobacco Company as well as certain portions from a book by one Shri V.T. Raghavachari on Appellate Remedies Under Excise and Customs. It was contended by Mr. Maru that in taxation matters, there is no estoppel in law against a party and merely because the party had accepted a certain position and treated a portion of item falling within one entry, the classification accepted under some misapprehension cannot bind the party, once the party becomes aware of the correct legal position. It was further contented that notifications issued under Section 25 of the Act are binding on the assessing authority and cannot be ignored while levying the duty and any such assessment, which ignores notification issued under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability by taking recourse to filing cross-objection. Similarly, an additional ground or a plea in the matter of assessment could be raised before an appellate authority provided it was open to the assessee to raise the said ground or plea during the course of assessment. 9. In the present case, as the facts on record go to show, the assessment in relation to vessel had been finalised on 14th November, 1990. The assessee had duly paid up the duty without demur on 16th November, 1990. The said assessment had not been challenged in any manner whatsoever. The Superintendent of Customs issued show cause notice on 7th May, 1991 proposing recovery of duty in respect of movable gears, stores and bunkers. The adjudication order dated 29th F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld have been challenged before the Tribunal; secondly, the assessee could not have raised the said issue before the appellate authority either by way of independent appeal or cross-objection; and thirdly, the assessee had merely raised a contention in writing in support of the cross-objection which did not contain any ground as regards the assessment of vessel which had already become final on 14th November, 1990. 10. The position of law is well settled that an assessing officer's jurisdiction in cases of reassessment is confined only to such income which has escaped tax or has been underassessed and does not extend to revising, reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to agitate questions which hav....