Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 265 - AT - Central ExciseLack of jurisdiction by the Assistant Commissioner - order set aside for want of jurisdiction. - Determination of duty and imposition of penalty - Held that:- In the present case is the issue is on valuation and re-determination of duty and imposition of penalty. Therefore the impugned order setting aside the original order on the jurisdiction is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits. See PAHWA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI [2005 (2) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that the order cannot be set aside for want of jurisdiction We direct the Commissioner (Appeals) after following the principle of natural justice to decide the appeal within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the order.
|