Service Tax : Where assessee had filed appeal against order of Joint Commissioner before CESTAT, CESTAT dismissed said appeal as not maintainable and assessee's request to transmit appeal papers to Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 119 (Bangalore - CESTAT)
CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH
G.P. Josekuttan
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin*
P.G. CHACKO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND M.VEERAIYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER
MISC. ORDER NO. 642 OF 2012
FINAL ORDER NO. 576 OF 2012
STAY ORDER NO. 1440 OF 2012
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 447/2012
STAY APPLICATION NO. 1502/2011
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 2446/2012
AUGUST 8, 2012
Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Orders of - Appellate Tribunal - Assessee filed an appeal before Tribunal on 12-10-2011 against order of Joint Commissioner dated 23-5-2011 relying upon a preamble in said order that appeal would lie to Tribunal - Department argued that said
preamble was corrected vide corrigendum within 13 days of its issue and was received by assessee on 2-6-2011 and, therefore, appeal would lie only to Commissioner (Appeals) - Assessee's appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed as barred by limitation - Assessee requested Tribunal to transmit appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD : Assessee's plea for transmitting appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) or for issuing other directions to Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be accepted as Tribunal does not have equitable powers - Such a course of action can invite more appeals of this nature from ill-advised parties - Since Tribunal is bound to decide matter as per statute, present appeal was dismissed as not maintainable [Para 5] [In favour of revenue]
Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Maintainability of - Appellate Tribunal - Assessee filed appeal against order of Joint Commissioner - CESTAT Registry did not intimate such defect to assessee - HELD : There was palpable carelessness on part of registry which ought to have noted that an appeal against a Joint Commissioner's order was not appealable to Tribunal - Accordingly, Registry should have returned memorandum of appeal and connected papers forthwith - This was not done despite fact that Joint Commissioner was cited as respondent in appeal in Cause Title and designation of authority passing impugned order was shown as Joint Commissioner - Nevertheless, appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of revenue]
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 119 (Bangalore - CESTAT)
CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH
G.P. Josekuttan
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin*
P.G. CHACKO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND M.VEERAIYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER
MISC. ORDER NO. 642 OF 2012
FINAL ORDER NO. 576 OF 2012
STAY ORDER NO. 1440 OF 2012
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 447/2012
STAY APPLICATION NO. 1502/2011
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 2446/2012
AUGUST 8, 2012
Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Orders of - Appellate Tribunal - Assessee filed an appeal before Tribunal on 12-10-2011 against order of Joint Commissioner dated 23-5-2011 relying upon a preamble in said order that appeal would lie to Tribunal - Department argued that said
preamble was corrected vide corrigendum within 13 days of its issue and was received by assessee on 2-6-2011 and, therefore, appeal would lie only to Commissioner (Appeals) - Assessee's appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed as barred by limitation - Assessee requested Tribunal to transmit appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD : Assessee's plea for transmitting appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) or for issuing other directions to Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be accepted as Tribunal does not have equitable powers - Such a course of action can invite more appeals of this nature from ill-advised parties - Since Tribunal is bound to decide matter as per statute, present appeal was dismissed as not maintainable [Para 5] [In favour of revenue]
Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Maintainability of - Appellate Tribunal - Assessee filed appeal against order of Joint Commissioner - CESTAT Registry did not intimate such defect to assessee - HELD : There was palpable carelessness on part of registry which ought to have noted that an appeal against a Joint Commissioner's order was not appealable to Tribunal - Accordingly, Registry should have returned memorandum of appeal and connected papers forthwith - This was not done despite fact that Joint Commissioner was cited as respondent in appeal in Cause Title and designation of authority passing impugned order was shown as Joint Commissioner - Nevertheless, appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of revenue]
No comments:
Post a Comment