Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (4) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25-3-2008. Learned counsel for the Respondent very fairly submitted that the Appeal may be restored. In view of the averments made in the Application it is allowed and the Appeal is restored to its original number. 2. This Appeal has been filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) against the Final Order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal passed on 2-12-2005. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent has raised an objection at the very threshold to the effect that the Appeal is liable to be dismissed, having been filed after the expiry of the period set-down in Section 35G. In support of his submission that the Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. 3. Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. 4. The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. (5) The High Court shall decide the question of law so formulated and deliver suc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under section 35C passed before the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, apply to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal. (2) The Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party applying to the High Court under sub-section (1) shall clearly state the question of law which he seeks .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prescribed as six months under the old law as well as the new Act, but since the power to condone the delay had not been prescribed in the statute, the High Court was right in rejecting the appeal. Their Lordships had adverted to the earlier decision in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) = (2008) 3 SCC 70 which dealt with Section 35 of the Act. That provision stipulates that an Appeal must be filed within sixty days from the date of the communication of the decision; the proviso empowered the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay if he was satisfied that the appellant had been prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the Appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, provided that the Appeal had been presen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court is binding on all other courts and those proscribing the enforcement of obiter dicta, (see Raval and Co. v. K.G. Rama Chandran, AIR 1974 SC 818, ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207, Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of AP, AIR 1983 SC 1246, Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 218, ONGC v. Western Co. of North America, AIR 1987 SC 674, MCD v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38, Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 402, Director of Settlements, AP v. M.R. Appa Rao, AIR 2002 SC 1598, Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271, State of Haryana v. Ranbir, AIR 2006 SC 1796 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Varial, (2007) 5 SCC 428). 10. It a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates