TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (1) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....85 on bus body constructions. The petitioner was compelled to pay duty in respect of such construction activities with effect from 1-3-1986. The duty was paid on ad valorem basis including the cost of the chassis, even though the petitioner is constructing only the body. Be it noted, the chassis had already suffered duty. While so, a Notification issued by the Department provided for exemption of the value of the chassis for computing the duty. As the petitioner had already paid duty on the full value for certain number of vehicles, claimed refund in terms of the Notification. The petitioner was able to get refund only in respect of vehicles cleared after 3-4-1986 and was not successful for the earlier clearances. Against that part of the O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel would contend that the reason was, as per the earlier Notification, there was no scope for further appeal, but the subsequent Notification with retrospective effect, enabled the petitioner to get a refund, and it was the cause of action for filing a further appeal with a petition to condone the delay. Though this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it has not been appreciated by the second respondent. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay reported in 16 S.T.C. 613, to contend that under similar circumstances, the only remedy available is to file an appeal with a petition to condone the delay or to file a petition for refund or rectification. The p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither convincing nor acceptable. Since the whole delay of one year and 40 days in the presentation of appeal has not been explained with proper and sufficient cause, we are unable to condone the delay and the application is dismissed, and consequently, we dismiss the appeal also." It is not quite correct for the Tribunal to observe that the belated presentation has not been explained with proper and sufficient reason. 6. As noticed earlier, the Notification issued by the Revenue on 10-12-1987 with retrospective effect from 1-3-1986 was the reason for filing the belated appeal before the second respondent. In the light of the earlier notification, which was prospective in character, the petitioner, on legal advice, did not pursue the matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under the Act. The appellant contends that. the transactions were outside sales and they did not and-could not fall under the charging section because of Article, 286, and it argues that the tax was levied because both the appellant and the appropriate authorities committed a mistake of fact as well as law in' dealing with the question. Assuming mat such a mistake was committed the conclusion that the transactions in question fell within the purview of the charging section cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or a nullity and claim the protection of Section 20. If, after discovering the mistake, the appellant had moved the appropriate authorities under the relevant provisions of the Act, its claim for refund would have been considere....