9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 269 - HC - Central ExciseDismissal of Appeal Appeal is not maintainable because the Review Order authorizing for filing of the said appeal, has not been signed by the Chief Commissioner appointed by Gazette Notification as required under the law Held that - Following the decision in case of T.R.F. Limited (2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT) that appeal of the revenue being is allowed and the impugned dismissing order is set aside. Appeal allowed. Issue remand back & decides in accordance with law on merits.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of Excise Appeal No. 346 of 2008 due to lack of signature by Chief Commissioner. 2. Setting aside the order dismissing Excise Appeal No. 346 of 2008. 3. Setting aside the order passed in Excise Appeal No. 232 of 2008. 4. Remanding both appeals to the Tribunal for deciding on merits. 5. Consideration of the Finance Act, 2010 amendment with retrospective effect. Analysis: 1. The High Court addressed the issue of the maintainability of Excise Appeal No. 346 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal due to the absence of the Chief Commissioner's signature on the Review Order. The Tribunal's decision was based on previous cases, but the Division Bench of the High Court, in a separate judgment, reversed this view in a different case, Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur Vs. T.R.F. Limited. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revenue's appeal, setting aside the dismissal of Excise Appeal No. 346 of 2008 and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a decision based on merits. 2. Another issue involved the order passed in Excise Appeal No. 232 of 2008, where the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the setting aside of the demand raised by the Assessing Officer. However, since the Tribunal did not consider the revenue's appeal in Excise Appeal No. 346 of 2008, the High Court determined that the merit of Excise Appeal No. 232 of 2008 could not have been decided without considering the revenue's appeal. Therefore, the High Court set aside the order in Excise Appeal No. 232 of 2008 and remanded both appeals to the Tribunal for a comprehensive decision on merits in accordance with the law. 3. The High Court acknowledged the submission made by the counsel for the assessee regarding the amendment of 2010 by the Finance Act, 2010, which had retrospective effect. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the appeals, except on the legal question addressed in the previous judgment. The Court allowed the assessee to raise this ground before the Tribunal, emphasizing that the Tribunal should decide both appeals based on facts and the law. 4. Ultimately, both tax appeals were allowed by the High Court, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant factors, including legal provisions and previous judgments, in deciding the appeals. The High Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair and thorough consideration of the appeals on their merits, emphasizing compliance with the law and procedural requirements to uphold the principles of justice and equity.
|
