9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 16 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - reversal of the final orders and re-adjudication - Held that - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Roots Multiclean Ltd. Versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that when the dispute raised is touching the valuation of the property, the Tribunal has no discretion to refuse to admit the appeal - CESTAT is directed to adjudicate the issues raised in the appeals and pass orders on merits - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to final order of CESTAT on pecuniary grounds; Interpretation of classification; Statutory provisions under Central Excise Act. Analysis: The High Court of Madras addressed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the final order of CESTAT, Madras, which dismissed the appeal on pecuniary grounds. The CESTAT dismissed the appeal due to being overburdened with heavy demand cases, deeming the small duty demand of ?2.80 lakhs unproductive to be taken up. However, the penalty was waived considering the involvement of interpretation of classification in the appeal. The appellant sought reversal of the final order and re-adjudication on merits based on substantial questions of law. These questions included whether CESTAT could dismiss an appeal on pecuniary grounds without mentioning statutory provisions, and whether there was a statutory obligation to dispose of admitted appeals on merits under the Central Excise Act. The Court considered the Division Bench judgment in Roots Multiclean Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai, and directed the Commissioner of Central Excise to take notice and revert. The CESTAT's counsel acknowledged that the issues raised in the appeal aligned with the Roots Multiclean Ltd. case. After reviewing the reported judgment and submissions, the Court found the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned final order of CESTAT and directing CESTAT to adjudicate the issues raised in the appeal promptly and in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
