9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1777 - AT - Central ExciseReview of Order - Doctrine of Merger - exemption to buses cleared to M/s Delhi Metro Railway Corporation from Notification dated 01 March, 2006 - whether it would be open to the Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court on 08 August, 2017 in a Civil Appeal, to review or modify its order dated 27 September, 2016 as the order of the Tribunal merged in the order passed by the Supreme Court? HELD THAT - In present case, the Civil Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The order of the Tribunal has merged with the order of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the Tribunal cannot review the order dated 27 September, 2016 dismissing the Excise Appeal No. 1727 of 2010 filed by the Applicant. It is for the Applicant to move an appropriate application before the Supreme Court, if so advised. Learned counsel for the Appellant has stated that some protection may be granted by the Tribunal since it would take some time to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Supreme Court and in this context it is pointed out that the High Court had also granted protection to the Appellant for a limited period - This request made by the Appellant seems to be justified - while rejecting the three Applications bearing nos. 50437 of 2019, 50438 of 2019 and 50439 of 2019, it is directed that for a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the Appellant/Applicant for recovery of the Excise Duty under the order dated 29 January, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. 2. Exemption claim under Notification dated 01 March, 2006. 3. Special Leave Petition converted into Civil Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court. 4. Suit for Recovery filed in Delhi High Court. 5. Tribunal order granting exemption to TATA Motors. 6. Permission granted by Delhi High Court to approach Tribunal for rectification. 7. Miscellaneous Applications filed for impleadment, stay, and relief. 8. Review or modification of Tribunal's order post Supreme Court's decision. 9. Doctrine of merger and jurisdiction of Tribunal after Supreme Court's order. 10. Request for protection against coercive action during Supreme Court proceedings. Analysis: 1. The Appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, regarding the denial of exemption claimed under the Notification dated 01 March, 2006 for buses supplied to DMRC. The Tribunal and subsequent Civil Appeal to the Supreme Court upheld the decision, leading to the filing of a Suit for Recovery in the Delhi High Court. 2. The Delhi High Court permitted the Appellant to approach the Tribunal post the judgment in favor of TATA Motors, which had been granted exemption for the chassis component of the buses. The High Court directed the Appellant to seek clarification on the excise duty payable based on subsequent developments. 3. The Tribunal's order granting exemption to TATA Motors played a crucial role in the Appellant's case, prompting the Delhi High Court to allow the Appellant to present all relevant information before the Tribunal for rectification of excise duty liabilities. 4. The Appellant filed Miscellaneous Applications in compliance with the Delhi High Court's directions, seeking impleadment of relevant parties, a stay on recovery proceedings, and relief as per the High Court's order. The Tribunal considered these applications and granted protection against coercive measures for a limited period. 5. The issue of review or modification of the Tribunal's order post the Supreme Court's decision was analyzed in light of the doctrine of merger. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that once leave to appeal is granted and appellate jurisdiction invoked, the order passed in appeal merges with the Supreme Court's decision. 6. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review its order dated 27 September, 2016, dismissing the Appellant's Excise Appeal. The Appellant was advised to approach the Supreme Court for any modifications or clarifications required. 7. The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellant's request for protection against coercive action during the time needed to initiate proceedings before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, a temporary stay on coercive measures for recovery of excise duty was granted for four weeks from the date of the Tribunal's decision.
|
