2005 (4) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....New Delhi (the Tribunal) has preferred this appeal proposing the following seven questions : "(1)      Whether Applicant is entitled to benefit of exemption Notification No. 22/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999, Sr. No. 5, read with Para 121 of the Budget 1998-99 speech applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay v. Delhi Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995 (98) STC 202 (Bom.) or otherwise? (2)        If the said exemption Notification were not entitled to the Appellant, whether it tantamounts to double taxation or otherwise as Ship Breakers are paying Sales Tax on sale of ship breaking materials. (3) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal has not recorded any findings in relation to proposed question Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7, while in so far as proposed question Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on facts and evidence on record. At this stage, it was submitted by the learned Advocate that in relation to proposed question Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 various grounds were raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal had failed to deal with the same. Accordingly, the appellant was granted time to produce certified copy of the Memorandum of Appeal and grounds filed before the Tribunal. 4.Today, the learned Advocate for the appellant has tendered certified copy of the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal filed before the Tribunal. The same, alon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp; Duty on foodstuff, not liable to pay being meant for crew members consumption, consumed by them on board the ship, not available for clearance and not imported by ship breakers." 7.Thus, it is apparent that apart from the controversy as to dutiability of Fuel Oil in Engine Room Tanks, the appellant had also challenged 4% Special Additional Duty of Customs on the basis of Notification No. 22/99-Cus., dated 28th February, 1999 and duty on foodstuff. The Tribunal in its order has failed to deal with the said grounds. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the Tribunal committed an error in law in not disposing of all the grounds raised before it while deciding the appeal. It is not as if the grounds which have been not dealt with are....