News Update

Goyal discusses rising freight cost, shipping delays & congestion at the portsCustoms - First Schedule - Chapter 98 - Clarificatory explanation on 'laboratory chemical' insertedKentucky Sheriff accused of shooting dead District Judge inside courthouseM/s Konoike Transport approved as Strategic Buyer for disinvestment of FSNLCus - Gold seized from appellant & auctioned without considering cogent evidence furnished; seizure invalidated, auction proceeds be refunded with interest: CESTATIndia grants USD 50 mn budgetary support for one more year to MaldivesFATF smacks on India's back for measures to tackle illicit financeCX - Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 are rightly invoked where assessee suppresses material facts about clearance of finished goods to related entity: CESTATTMC disowns Minister’s statement that women were drinking during protestBRICS Summit: India showcases Legal Reforms and InitiativesST - For the amenities provided by service recipient, the cost thereof cannot be included in assessable value of service in hands of appellant being service provider, therefore, demand is not sustainable: CESTATChina, India are not rivals rather cooperators, says Chinese envoyRM exhorts Navy to be prepared for every situation in today's volatile global scenarioI-T - Revenue is not permitted to express different opinion based on very same facts disclosed during original assessment proceedings: HCIndia trashes report on Indian ammunition reaching UkraineI-T - No distinction to be made between direct and indirect expenses that are eligible for deduction under Section 35 D of the Income Tax Act: HCBiden hopeful of further cut in rates by FedI-T - Non-investment of sale consideration or portion thereof in designated capital gains would not come in way of assessee claiming exemption so long as assessee had invested said amount for construction: HCLanka to go to polls for New President tomorrowI-T - Assessee sought repeated adjournments without valid reason; costs of Rs 2000/- per appeal imposed on assessee; nevertheless, case remanded for de novo hearing, given tight scheduling of notices & interests of justice: ITATIsrael incinerates 1000 rocket launcher barrels of HezbollahI-T - Interest received by credit cooperative society from investment held, cannot be treated as it's operational income, as interest received is not from credit facilities provided to its members as envisaged u/s 80P(2)(a)(i): ITATSEBI hammer falls on Axis Capital; Ban imposed from acting as investment banker in debt marketI-T - Where DVO has power to estimate value independently & fails to do so, then PCIT's action to seek fresh report & revise the assessment, is outside scope of Section 263: ITATCJI asks lawyers to use SC Platform for recorded ordersNPS Vatsalya - FM launches pension scheme for minorsIP Saarthi - Govt launches AI/ML-based search engine for TrademarksNACIN hosts 3-day roundtable on IPR; Govt envisages greater role of Customs in IPR protectionUS Presidential Poll: Tall promises by Hopefuls elbow economy closer to tax-doom-loop!Fed lives up to global expectations; cuts interest rate by 0.5% - first cut in last 4 yearsMandaviya chairs meeting to provide Social Security to Gig and Platform WorkersCAQM announces revised GRAP schedule for Delhi-NCR
 
Cus - Public order should be passed by public authority publicly to serve public interest - Litigant should not made remediless: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, NOV 14, 2017: THE Appellant is before the CESTAT against a letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.9.2017 conveying the decision of Commissioner.

The Member (Judicial) writing for the Division Bench observed –

"It is settled principle of law that a public order should be passed by public authority publicly to serve public interest. But that should not be a decision conveyed by his subordinate without being passed publicly and behind the back of the appellant. This is the jurisprudence laid down by the Apex Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16. Also the basic principle of judicial discipline is that a person who hears should pass an order and should not fancifully communicate his order through a subordinate who has not heard the matter. This is the position of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - AIR 1958 SC 308."

Accordingly, the Bench directed the Commissioner to pass a public order hearing the appellant publicly without communicating his decision through a subordinate.

It is further mentioned –

"4. The communication of the Deputy Commissioner does not specify the reason why the appellant has to carry out the direction of his superior communicated by him without an order of a quasi judicial Authority. Reason being heartbeat of justice, absence thereof buries justice.

5. While passing appropriate order, learned Authority shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and record its pleadings as well as evidence. Stating reason of his decision, he shall pass appropriate order."

The Chief Commissioner, Customs was also advised to issue appropriate guidelines to the field officers so as to ensure that a litigant is not made remediless.

(See 2017-TIOL-4000-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube brings you an interview with former US Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Larry Summers who was recently in Delhi.

AR not Afar by SK Rahman



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.