2018 (2) TMI 395 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMI – Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee holding that the Revenue could not have applied the extended period of limitation?
–
Held that: – Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate, who appears for the respondent, fairly states that the Tribunal had relied upon an earlier decision in the case of the assessee, which has been reversed by the Allahabad High Court with an order of remand – In view of the statement made by Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate, we are setting aside the impugned order with a direction for remand, without commenting on merits – appeal allowed by way of remand. – CEAC 28/2017 Dated:- 11-1-2018 – MR. SANJIV KHANN
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ll.), wherein judgment of the Tribunal in the case of respondent assessee was set aside. Tribunal in the impugned order has followed, the overruled judgment. The impugned order merely quotes from the overruled judgement of the Tribunal. Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate, who appears for the respondent, fairly states that the Tribunal had relied upon an earlier decision in the case of the assessee, which has been reversed by the Allahabad High Court with an order of remand. It is also stated that the order passed by the Allahabad High Court is an ex-parte order. In the present case, he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside with an order of reward. He states that the Tribunal has not decided the question whether the respondent assessee
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =