2018 (2) TMI 1656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax. These revisions have already been admitted. Though the questions were not formulated by the Court, they were formulated by the revisionist in the revision itself, however, with the agreement of the parties the Court has formulated these questions for its consideration as under: 1.) Whether the Tribunal could have decided the second appeal in the manner it has done, cursorily, without considering the grounds of the second appeal and the questions raised before it, by merely reiterating and affirming the order of the First Appellate Court without giving any reasons for non acceptance of the pleas raised before it by the revisionist-appellant ? 2.) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....est as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Revisionist and further since a debatable legal issue is involved that lease of the machine in question was not covered by the definition of ''goods', realization of interest on the aforesaid amount of trade tax already deposited shall remain in abeyance provided the revisionist furnishes adequate security excluding cash and bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority." Contention of Sri Pradeep Agarwal, Advocate is that in the second appeal filed before the Tribunal, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 (Page 38 and 39), the specific ground of challenge challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority and the assessment order itself which ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i) thereof, but this aspect of the matter has also not been considered. In response, Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the State, on being confronted as to the non-consideration of the relevant pleas by the Tribunal, fairly admitted to the non-consideration. He, however, submitted that the revisionist did not have a case on merits as, according to him, the energy device was 'goods' within the meaning of the said term in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 5 SCC 122, Commissioner of Central Excise v. Solid and Correct Engineering Works and ors., (paragraphs 24 to 44 thereof). Secondly, his submission was that in view of another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goa Carbo....