TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty on this as recipient of 'goods transport agency' service. The tax liability was crystallised at Rs. 1,20,140 and Rs. 27,786 respectively. The claim of the appellant was that the charge was less than Rs. 750 per consignment and, hence, entitling them to exemption in accordance with notification no.3/2004-ST dated 3rd December 2004. According to the investigation team, the terms of engagement notwithstanding, the payment was made in consolidated amounts at periodic intervals. The demands having been confirmed by the original authority, the first appellate authority, Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur vide orders-in-appeal no. SR/449/NGP/2010 dated 23rd December 2010 and no. SR/231/NGP/2011dated 3rd February 2011 uph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case has to be considered on its ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Universal Cables Ltd. v. Union of India -1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 92) wherein the question raised for determination was whether penalty proceedings taken under Rule 173Q for the infraction of Rule 173C with a view to evading payment of duty fell within the expression 'other legal proceeding' used in the said sub-section. The High Court conceded that the expression when read in isolation is wide enough to include any proceeding taken in accordance with law, whether so taken in a court of law or before any authority or Tribunal but when read with the preceding words 'suit' or 'prosecution' it must be given a restricted meaning. This is how the High Court expressed itself at page J 106 : "Now the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions that the wide expression 'other legal proceeding' must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words 'suit' and 'prosecution' as they constitute a genus. In this view of the matter we must uphold the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the penalty and adjudication proceedings in question did not fall within the expression 'other legal proceeding' employed in Section 40(2) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 22 of 1973 and therefore, the said proceedings were not subject to the limitation prescribed by the said sub-section. 10. Mr. Nambiar, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly argued that we ....