Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (7) TMI 1520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to medical grounds and the impugned order got misplaced and the applicant was in the knowledge of such an order being passed only when such recovery proceedings were initiated by the Superintendent of Central Excise. 2. We find that the delay has been explained and the reasoning given for justifying the delay are acceptable as we also find that the Director of the appellant/applicant has filed a sworn affidavit before the tribunal. Accordingly we condone the delay. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, as correctly put forth by the Learned Counsel that identical issue of the very same appellant was disposed of by this bench in final order No. A/31919-31932/2017 dated 14.11.2017. Since the issue is in respect of the same appellant and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th mutuality of interest in business between Black Gold and the other two firms should be examined as provided in section 4(3)(b)(iv) of the Act. However, the adjudicating authority has held that the aspect of 4(3)(b)(i) which lays down that persons are related if they are inter-connected undertakings alone need to be satisfied in the matter and there is no need to look for any other criteria. 6.12 The question then requires to be answered is whether the addition of share holding of "close relatives" by the adjudicating authority is legally correct or not. In our opinion, the answer is resoundingly in the negative. We are unable to find any provision in section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 or for that matter, in section 2(g) of MRTP Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the object of interpretation of a statute is to discover the intention of the Parliament as expressed in the Act. The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute, considering it as a whole and in its context. That intention, and therefore the meaning of the statute, is primarily to be sought in the words used in the statute itself, which must, if they are plain and unambiguous, be applied as they stand." Viewed in this context, the attempt of the lower authorities to add the shareholding of the shareholders in Black Gold "related" to the concerned partners is surely a misconceived interpretation of the relevant statutory provision. 6.13 We are therefore ....