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 →

CCE, Raipur Versus M/s. M.S.P. Steel & Power Ltd.

2016 (6) TMI 152 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Maintainability or revenue appeal - Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as there was no proper review or authorization in accordance with Section 35 B(2) of the Act, 1944 - Held that:- the issue is no more res integra and the same High Court of Chattisgarh in a latter decision answered the question of law now referred to this Tribunal for decision. Therefore, by following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. [2013 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2016 - Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri M.R. Sharma, DR. For the Respondent : Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appeal is against the order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur. The brief facts of the present appeal by the Revenue is that respondent are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron etc. liable to central excise duty. Certain proceedings were initiated against them for short payment of central excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e imposition of penalty. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was decided by a final order dated 7.1.2010. The Tribunal restored order-in-original by allowing the appeal by Revenue. The respondent filed appeal before the High Court of Chattisgarh. The Honble High Court vide their order dated 25.02.2011 set aside the Tribunals order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to record a finding on the following limited question of law:- Whether the appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terms of Section 35 B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Ld. AR contested the argument of the respondent and submitted that the exercise of powers under Section 35 B(2) has been a subject matter of decision by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case - L.R. Sharma 2014 (35) STR 3 (Delhi) upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of 2015 (39) STR J-83 (SC) and Honble Allahabad High Court in Devson Steels - 2014 (301) ELT 295 (All.), Ufan Chemicals - 2013 (290) ELT 217 (Allahabad) and Stand .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is not legal or proper. 10. In the present case, the opinion of the Committee of the Commissioners of Central Excise or authorization under Section 35 B(2) of the Act records brief facts of the case and grounds of the appeal and as to why the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal; and thereafter, it opines for filing of an appeal. 11. This authorization is signed by both the Commissioners. However, one of them has signed on 4.11.2008 and the other one has signed on 5.11.2008. .....

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