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

2013 (8) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssed by the appellate authority under its vested discretionary jurisdiction, could not be interfered under the superintending or revisional jurisdiction of this Court and deserves to be dismissed. Discretionary Jurisdiction u/s 35(F) - It was undisputed fact on record that the order had been passed by the appellate authority by virtue of the proviso of Section 35 (F) of the Act under its vested discretionary jurisdiction. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the matter - the interlocutory order had not been found to be improper or contrary to the proviso of Section 35 (F) of the Act and in such premises - there was no perversity, illegality, arbitrariness or anything against the propriety of law in the interlocutory order - the pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 35 (F) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (In short the Act ), argued that on filing the appeal under Section 35 of the Act against the order of the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise the appellant is bound to deposit the sum in accordance with the order of the subordinate authority for entertaining the appeal but under the proviso the Appellate Authority has discretion to exempt the petitioner from depositing such sum and decide the appeal on merits. Under such proviso the authority is bound to pass interlocutory order in judicial manner and not in arbitrary manner. In continuation he said that according to the case of the petitioner the alleged demand was directed by the subordinate authority for the sum, which was already deposited by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 84) ELT 347 (All.) (viii) Viral Builders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Surat, reported in 2011 (21) STR 457 (Tri. Ahmd.). (ix) Vijay Sharma Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh reported in 2010 (20) STR 309 (Tri. LB) and (x) 2003 (10) SCC 121 3. On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments by justifying the impugned order Ms. Anuradha Singh, counsel of the respondents, and appeared on advance copy of the petition said that the same being based on proper consideration of the factual matrix of the matter and hardship of the petitioner is in accordance with the law, it does not require any interference under the superintending jurisdiction of this Court. She further said that in view of the settled proposition of la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. And anr. Vs. Ajit Prasad Taraway reported in AIR 1973 SC 76, in which it was held as under : High Court should not interfere even in the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not, unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity Placitum 7. Subsequent to aforesaid again in the matter of Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd Mustaqim Ors reported in 1984 SC 38, the Apex Court held as under: Mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seen that an inferior Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iscretion to exempt dispense with the appellant from depositing such sum with or without imposing conditions. It is apparent that considering the same out of huge sum the petitioner has only been directed to deposit a lessor sum i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lacs), with some conditions enumerated in the impugned interlocutory order. In such premises, it could not be said that the appellate Court has not considered the matter in judicial manner for passing the interlocutory order. Pursuant to it, the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel that the impugned order being arbitrary is not sustainable has not appealed us. 11. We have also carefully gone through all the case laws cited by the petitioner's counsel but out of them various .....

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