9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1102 - HC - Central ExciseMaintanibility - Impugned order regarding exemption under Notification No.14/2002-CE dated 01-03-2002, passed by Tribunal by relying upon its earlier order passed by a Larger Bench was challenged by the Department before the Gujarat High Court - Appeal held to be non maintainable vide order passed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shanti Processors Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 1164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Held that - by considering the Shanti Processors Ltd. case (supra), the issue involved in the present appeal is same, the appeal being not maintainable before this Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the same is dismissed as not maintainable, however, with liberty to the appellant to avail of its appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. - Decided in favour of Revenue
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Exemption Notification No.14/2002-CE and its conditions. 2. Applicability of the exemption to products subject to accrual payment of duty. 3. Scope of Explanation-II to the notification regarding Textile Yarn and Fabrics. 4. Application of case law CCE, Ludhiana vs. Prem Industries by the Tribunal. Interpretation of Exemption Notification No.14/2002-CE and its conditions: The High Court addressed the issue of whether the exemption under Notification No.14/2002-CE dated 01-03-2002, along with its conditions, was correctly held to be admissible to the Respondent by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal relied on a previous order by a Larger Bench in the case of Arvind Products Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad, which was challenged in the Gujarat High Court. The High Court noted that the appeal in the Gujarat High Court was found not maintainable as it concerned the determination of the rate of duty for assessment purposes. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal before it as not maintainable under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but granted liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate remedy before the suitable forum. Applicability of the exemption to products subject to accrual payment of duty: The Court examined whether the conditions attached to Notification No.14/2002 allowed the benefit of the exemption to be availed only concerning products subject to the accrual payment of duty. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's application of the case law of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Prem Industries was incorrect without distinguishing the present case's facts from the said case. The High Court considered the issue in light of the decision in the Gujarat High Court's case of Shanti Processors Ltd., finding the issue in the present appeal to be the same. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable but granted the appellant the liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy before the relevant forum. Scope of Explanation-II to the notification regarding Textile Yarn and Fabrics: Another issue addressed was whether the Explanation-II to the notification created a legal fiction that included Textile Yarn and Fabrics subject to a Nil rate of duty or only those subject to the payment of duty. The High Court's decision was influenced by the Gujarat High Court's ruling in a related case, leading to the dismissal of the present appeal as not maintainable under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant was given the liberty to explore the appropriate legal recourse available. Application of case law CCE, Ludhiana vs. Prem Industries by the Tribunal: The Court also analyzed whether the Tribunal correctly applied the case law of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Prem Industries without distinguishing the factual circumstances of the present case. The High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable under the Central Excise Act, 1944, was based on the similarity of the issue with a case before the Gujarat High Court. The appellant was granted the freedom to seek the appropriate legal remedy before the suitable forum.
|
