Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
[Shantilal Jain v. UOI, 2010 (252) ELT 326 (Bom.)]
In this case the impugned order was passed by the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal practically after a period of six
months from the date of hearing. The Bombay High Court set aside the order
without examining merits or demerits thereof and the appeal was restored to the
file of the
Tribunal for de novo hearing and decision afresh. The Court relied on the case
of Dewang Rasiklal Vora v. Union of India, 2003 (158) ELT 30 (Bom.); wherein it
was held that the judgment passed after considerable gap of time from the date
of hearing was
liable to be set aside, observing that justice should not only be done, but must
manifestly appear to
be done.
The Court also showed displeasure on the conduct of the
advocates signing the minutes of the order on behalf of the Revenue, which was
found to be not as per consensus between the advocates. The Court observed that
it was the obligation on the part of the advocate for the Revenue to protect the
interest of the Revenue and to be more diligent.
See Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. CIT, (2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom.)