|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 5 of 5 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2020 (5) TMI 610
Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - applicability of notification No.13/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008 amending the notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.05.1995 - Section 35G or 35L of the Central Excise Act? - HELD THAT:- A conjoint reading of Section 35G and 35L, it could be seen that an appeal would lie to this Court against every order passed in an appeal by the appellate tribunal, if the case involves a substantial question of law. However, exception to this general rule is that an appeal would lie before the Hon’ble Apex Court and not before this Court against an order relating, amongst 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 the purposes of assessment.
The aforesaid authoritative principles by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-1 VERSUS M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD. [2019 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that if order of the Appellate Tribunal would go beyond interse disputes between the parties and may effect large number of cases, such an issue would partake the character of one of ‘General public importance’. Comparative analysis of Section 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act would indicate they are mutually exclusive. Therefore, dispute which would be in the domain of Section 35L cannot be held or presumed that it would incidentally fail with domain under Section 35G also. Parliament would not have envisaged of vesting overlapping of the jurisdiction.
The dispute does not restrict itself to inter party rights, but extends to class or category of assessees like the respondent herein, inasmuch as, interpretation of the notification dated 01.03.2008 is the subject matter of this appeal. Thus, issue as to whether the said notification would empower the revenue to deny the exemption provided under the notification dated 28.08.1995 is an issue which has to be determined by formulating substantial question of law framed in that regard and same has to be answered - the issue involved relates determination of excercisibility of the goods for the purposes of assessment by virtue of the clarificatory notification dated 01.03.2008.
An appeal under Section 35G before this Court would not be maintainable and appellant–revenue has to pursue its grievance by filing an appeal under Section 35L before the Hon’ble Apex Court - Appeal filed under Section 35G is held to be not maintainable and reserving liberty to the appellant to present this appeal before Hon’ble Apex Court under Section 35L - appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 505
Monetary amount involved in the appeal - prosecution of appeal - Circular bearing No.F.No390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 17.08.2011 - whether such appeal filed by the revenue against order dated 08.08.2018, which involved the tax component of ₹ 1,81,754/- could not have been prosecuted or not?
HELD THAT:- By Circular dated 17th August 2011 referred herein, monetary limit fixed for the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal had been restricted to ₹ 5 lac and above. The said monetary limit came to be enhanced upto ₹ 10 lac by Circular dated 17th December 2015. The Central Board of Excise & Customs by its extent Instruction F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 1st January 2016 has clarified that Circular dated 17th December 2015, whereunder monetary limits for Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court entertaining the appeal has been fixed is to be understood as also applicable to all pending appeals before CESTAT and High Courts - an appeal which was pending as on the date of 1st January 2016, within monetary limit fixed under Circular dated 17th December 2015. Then such appeals were not maintainable before CESTAT.
This aspect having been noticed by Tribunal in the instant case could not have entertained the appeal by Revenue. It was required to be dismissed as monetary limit fixed was ₹ 10 lac and in the instant case, the quantum of refund, which was subject matter of appeal, was ₹ 1,81,754/-.
Appeal allowed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (5) TMI 392
Remand of the case - Coordinate Bench of this Court [in which Dr.Vineet Kothari, J. was one of the Member] in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, COIMBATORE. VERSUS PRICOL LIMITED, CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI [2019 (8) TMI 759 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had also upheld the remand of the matter to the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Since the matter already stands remanded back to the First Appellate Authority by the order of the learned Tribunal, we are not inclined to make any observations on the merits of the case and the parties are directed to raise their rival contentions before the First Appellate Authority - the First Appellate Authority will decide the case in accordance with law - Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 62
Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT:- Office objections to be removed within a period of two weeks, failing which, the concerned matter shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2020 (5) TMI 61
Stay of impugned order during pendency of the appeal - impleadment as a respondent - SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - HELD THAT:- The court is of the view that a prima facie case has been made out for grant of exparte interim relief.
Issue Notice, returnable on 29th January, 2020 - By way of ad-interim relief, the operation of the impugned order M/S JOLLY ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES AND NILESH V SHAH VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. VADODARA-II [2019 (10) TMI 95 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] is hereby stayed.
|
