TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elay beyond which the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellant purchased debris of old go-down tin shed situated at industrial area, Bhilai from one M/s Jagriti Ispat by a sale deed dated 23.4.2007. The appellant was issued small industries registration certificate by the District Trade and Industry Centre, Durg on 11.2.2008 and was also issued a certificate for exemption from payment of stamp duty. On 19.5.2010, the respondent served a notice on the appellant for deposit of Rs. 22,19,135/- along with interest on the ground that the premises having factory of M/s Gyan Industry was purchased by M/s Jagriti Industries and thereafter by the appellant, therefore, the appellant being successor of the industry is liable to pay dues recoverable from M/s Gyan Industries, as contemplated under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). Thereafter, another communication was served on the appellant on 24.8.2010 (Annexure- P/8 in WP) again directing him to make payment of the subject amount. On 1.1.2013, the appellant informed the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bhilai that he is not su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case, as stated infra, are not in dispute. Insofar as the appellant's earlier effort to assail the demand in the writ proceeding and submission of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) after the period of limitation, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Singh Enterprises (Supra) that if the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also to the Tribunal was presented after 60 days, the said authority can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days but the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. 7. In a Full Bench decision rendered by the Gujrat High Court in the matter of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the following questions were referred to be answered by the Larger Bench:- "(1) Whether the period of limitation provided of 60 days, for filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could be extended only upto 30 days as provided by the proviso or the delay beyond the period of 90 days could also be condoned in filing an appeal? (2) Where a statutory remedy or appeal is provided under Section 35 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mative, but with the clarification that - A) The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be preferred for challenging the order passed by the original adjudicating authority in following circumstances that - A.1) The authority has passed the order without jurisdiction and by assuming jurisdiction which there exist none, or A.2) Has exercised the power in excess of the jurisdiction and by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or A.3) Has acted in flagrant disregard to law or rules or procedure or acted in violation of principles of natural justice where no procedure is specified. B) Resultantly, there is failure of justice or it has resulted into gross injustice. We may also sum up by saying that the power is there even in aforesaid circumstances, but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of the judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge." 9. In the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax and Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal {(2014) 1 SCC 603}, the Supreme Court held that the Income Tax Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness carried on in the establishment. The two concepts are entirely different. One may acquire the ownership of an establishment without taking over the business as a going concern and becoming a successor in interest of the transferor would depend on consideration of several relevant factors and the decision would depend on the evaluation of all these relevant factors, none of them being treated as of overriding or conclusive significance. The Tribunal seems to have missed some material aspects, viz., the entire undertaking including the dockyard was closed, notice of closure of the company was put after the scheme was approved by the High Court, there was no business which was being carried on as a going concern, the corporation as to take only such of the existing workers of the company as is possible, after taking over by the corporation it did not start operating until June 5, 1967, the business activity was diversified, workers not taken over were to be paid legitimate compensation. The Tribunal did not take into consideration these important and relevant aspects. The Tribunal's finding, therefore, cannot stand, as it was not relevant and failed to take into account the....