Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2011 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 600 - HC - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Jurisdiction of the high court - Held that:- question determining rate & value of duty are to be heard before supreme court cannot be a ground to hold that the appeal against the order of pre-deposit would also be maintainable before the Apex Court. In view of Navin Chemicals Mfg & Trading Co (1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), pre-deposit order passed by CESTAT cannot be said to have direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty/to the value of goods. Levy of duty of excise on jute carpets - In Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhubaneswar-1 v. Champdany Industries Ltd., (2009 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) relying upon Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules, the Supreme Court held that dominant intention in the rule specifically, clause (a) thereof is that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to the heading providing a more general description. Following this interpretation in paragraph-46 of the judgment it was held that the goods manufactured by the respondent-company are to be classified as jute carpet floor coverings. We are surprised to find that the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has, in the present case having considered the foresaid judgments, which in our view cover the question, went on to distinguish the judgment both on question of facts as well as interpretation of Rule 3, and held that the appellant does not have a strong prima facie case for consideration of the application for waiver. After going through the judgment of the Supreme Court and facts obtained in the case we are unable to find any distinction, whatsoever. - Stay granted.
|