2016 (2) TMI 898 - HC - Central Excise

Applicability of relied upon Tribunal s judgment which is seized with the Apex Court - Whether supplies from DTA to SEZ to be treated as exports or not - Tribunal by relying on the judgment of its own allowed the appellant s appeal - Revenue contended that Tribunal cannot rely upon the judgment which is pending in the Hon ble Apex Court - Held that - the appeal can be decided in appellant s favour by relying on the judgment which is pending before the Hon ble Apex court. However, in the event the Revenue succeeds in the proceedings before the Apex Court and a different view is taken, the question may be required to be considered by the Competent Authority and at that stage, rights and contentions of both the sides should remain open. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Interpretation of earlier Tribunal decision - Entertaining appeal based on consensus - Substantial question of law - Rights and contentions for future consideration.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Karnataka pertains to an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The Tribunal's decision in the case under consideration was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant, represented by Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, raised a contention regarding the Tribunal's decision in another case involving 'SUJANA METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED Vs. CCE, HYDERABAD.' The appellant argued that since the matter was sub judice before the Apex Court, the High Court should entertain the appeal. However, the High Court, comprising Mr. Jayant Patel and Mrs. S. Sujatha, found the submission unconvincing. The Court noted that there was a consensus, including from the Appellant-Revenue, that the issue was already covered by the earlier Tribunal decision in the case of SUJANA METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED. The Court emphasized that if the Tribunal's decision was based on this precedent, there would be no substantial question of law. The judgment highlighted that if the appellant succeeded in the Apex Court and a different view emerged, the Competent Authority would need to reconsider the matter with both parties' rights and contentions remaining open. Consequently, the High Court declined to entertain the appeal, subject to the observation made, and disposed of the matter accordingly.