9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal under Sec. 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against CESTAT's order regarding deposit of duty fortnightly by the appellant. Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal under Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the appellant against an order passed by CESTAT. The impugned order upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the forfeiture of the facility for depositing duty fortnightly. The Commissioner's order, which was endorsed by the Assistant Commissioner, was not challenged by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the appellant had no legal right to challenge it at a later stage. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel and examining the impugned order, found no merit in the appeal and decided to dismiss it summarily. The Tribunal's main consideration was whether the Commissioner's decision to deny the facility of depositing duty fortnightly to the appellant was justified. The Tribunal observed that since the appellant did not challenge the main order that revoked this benefit and it had attained finality, the appellant could not challenge it in the present proceedings. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's reasoning, stating that there was no error of law in this finding, and it was legally sound and based on solid reasoning. The appellant's attempt to raise new issues in the appeal, citing a previous decision, was rejected as such issues were not raised before the Tribunal, and new issues could not be introduced at this stage of the appeal process. The High Court concluded that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and, therefore, failed. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's order, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. The judgment did not impose any costs on either party. The decision was made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, with the order pronounced by one of the judges, A.M. Sapre.
|
