9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1467 - HC - Central ExciseBenefit of exemption Notification 8/97 - whether the appellant is entitled to claim exemption under Notification No. 8/97 or he is bound to pay Central Excise duty equallent to customs duty as per Notification No. 13/98 dated 2-6-1998 - Held that - no mention has been made in the common order with regard to the period mentioned in CMA No. 2 of 2011. Since no finding has been given in the common order with regard to the period mentioned CMA No. 2 of 2011 it is needless to say that the final order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to its file. Since the final order in question does not mention anything about the period mentioned in CMA No. 2 of 2011 this Court is of the view that question of jurisdiction raised on the side of the second respondent cannot be decided. Further since the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Appellate Tribunal the common substantial question of law settled in these proceedings need not be decided. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenging order by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on central excise duty for manufacturing cotton yarn, appeal based on exemption under Notification No. 8/97, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for appeal, consideration of periods in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 8/97, remittance of the matter to the Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against an order by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the payment of central excise duty for manufacturing cotton yarn. The appellant received show cause notices directing payment of duty equivalent to customs duty for specific periods. The appellant challenged these notices, claiming exemption under Notification No. 8/97. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the claims, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal, which was allowed. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal, which rejected the appellant's claim, prompting the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. During the proceedings, a substantial question of law was raised regarding the justification of demanding duty under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the period mentioned in one of the appeals, necessitating the setting aside of the common order. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the matter falls under the purview of Sections 35(G) and (L) of the Central Excise Act, making the appeals non-maintainable as the Supreme Court holds jurisdiction in such cases. The Court acknowledged the discrepancy in considering the periods in the appeals and emphasized the need to determine the appellant's entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 8/97. Since the Appellate Tribunal did not address the period mentioned in one of the appeals, the final order was deemed flawed, leading to the decision to set it aside and remit the matter back to the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing a remittance of the case for further consideration. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of proper consideration of all relevant periods and legal provisions in appeals concerning central excise duty exemptions. The decision to remit the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal underscores the necessity for a thorough and accurate assessment of the facts and legal arguments presented in such cases.
|
