9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1301 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of order of CESTAT - Unjust enrichment - appellant placed reliance in the case of Grasim Industries Vs. CCE 2003 (6) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , which was overruled by the decision in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2005 (5) TMI 91 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , which the appellant did not consider - Held that - If the Appellant was duly represented before the Tribunal and no explanation has been furnished why the judgment in SRF Ltd. was not cited before the Tribunal, we are not persuaded to interfere at this stage and grant liberty to the Appellant as prayed to file a review application before the Tribunal because if the Appellant be correct, no person can be prejudiced by an act of the Court - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order disallowing claim of unjust enrichment based on Tribunal's decision. Failure to cite relevant judgment before Tribunal. Request for liberty to file review application. Analysis: The judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court involved a challenge to an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of a claim of unjust enrichment by the Appellant. The Appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was based on a judgment in Grasim Industries case, which had been overruled by a Larger Bench in the SRF Ltd. case. The Court noted that if the Appellant had not cited the SRF Ltd. judgment before the Tribunal, they were not inclined to interfere at that stage. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and stated that if the Appellant believed they were correct, they should file a review application before the Tribunal for proper consideration. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn but granted the Appellant the liberty to file a review application before the Tribunal. The Court's decision was based on the principle that no person should be prejudiced by an act of the Court, and if the Appellant's position was correct, it was essential for the correct law to be laid down. The judgment highlighted the significance of citing relevant precedents and following proper legal procedures to ensure the correct application of law. The Court's ruling aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal process and ensure that justice was served through adherence to established legal principles.
|
