Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Areva T & D India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, LTU Chennai

2015 (9) TMI 1266 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Change of cause title - Transfer of appeal - Held that:- OIO has been issued by the jurisdictional Commissioner, LTU falling within the jurisdiction of this Bench falling within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, the respective appeal will lie in this Bench. Accordingly, the request of Revenue for transfer of appeal is not justified. On perusal of Central Excise Registration Certificate No. AAPCS6078QEM007 dt. 28.6.2013 we also find that appellant has the unit in Chenna .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Revenue's MISC application, there is also prayer for transfer of appeal to CESTAT Kolkata Bench. 2. Revenue filed application on 25.6.2012 seeking for change of cause title as well as requesting for transfer of appeal to CESTAT Kolkata. On the other hand, appellant-assessee filed MISC application on 7.8.2013 seeking change of cause title from M/s. Areva T & D India Ltd. to M/s. Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd. These applications were taken up for hearing on several occasions and on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation, appeal is to be heard by this Bench as per CESTAT (Procedure) Rules as the jurisdictional Bench is Chennai where the Commissioner, LTU passed the impugned order. He further submits that as per the provisions, only assessee-appellant has right to seek for transfer of appeal to another Bench and respondent-revenue cannot seek transfer of appeal. He further submitted that even if the appeal is transferred to Kolkata Bench, in the event of any further appeal, it has to be filed only before th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the case of Nissan Copper Ltd. Vs CCE Vapi 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R submits that LTU was formed as per Rule 12BB of Central Excise Rules where the procedures of LTU has been spelt out. As per the Rules, once the appellant has opted for LTU, the Commissioner LTU has the jurisdiction of all the units of the LTU and accordingly passed the impugned order whereas the cause of issue at Kolkata and SCN waived by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI. She further submits that after the demerge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r hearing both sides, we find that impugned OIO dt. 27.11.2009 was passed by the Commissioner(CE&ST), LTU, Chennai wherein he adjudicated the SCN and passed the final order against Areva T&D India Ltd. as the said company opted LTU registration for all their units. The appellant i.e Areva T&D India Ltd. filed the present appeal against the Commissioner's LTU order. We find that Areva T & D Ltd. is still under the jurisdiction of Commissioner, LTU. Only after the demerger the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version