9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 929 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - availability of an alternate remedy - final assessment is yet to be completed - HELD THAT - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2010 (3) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has stressed upon the Tribunal the need to give deference to the decisions of its co-ordinate benches - Since the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as premature and that prima facie we find that in identical circumstances the Tribunal has taken a different view, we are inclined to entertain this petition, more particularly in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mercedes India Ltd. However, before concluding finally on the issue, we find that it will be appropriate to let the Tribunal examine the above cited decisions rendered by the co-ordinate benches and then take an informed decision whether the appeal is premature or otherwise. The appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal. The Petitioner will place the compilation of the above decisions and any other decisions for consideration of the Tribunal on the question of maintainability of the appeal. The Tribunal after considering these decisions will take a decision regarding maintainability of the appeal. Petition disposed off.
Issues: Challenge to tribunal's order, Premature appeal dismissal, Maintainability of appeal, Quashing and restoration of appeal
In this case, the Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner as premature, stating that deciding on goods yet to be provisionally assessed would be premature. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal by the Respondent-Revenue. The Petitioner contended that the Tribunal had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed it as premature. The Petitioner cited various decisions where the Tribunal entertained appeals in similar circumstances. The High Court noted that the Tribunal did not refer to these decisions in its order and emphasized the need for the Tribunal to consider decisions of its co-ordinate benches. The High Court, following the precedent, quashed the Tribunal's order and restored the appeal to the Tribunal for a decision on maintainability after considering the cited decisions. The High Court clarified that it had not concluded on the legal and factual aspects, leaving them open for further consideration. The High Court considered the maintainability of the appeal and the issue of premature dismissal by the Tribunal. It noted the Petitioner's argument that the Tribunal had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed it as premature. The High Court referred to previous decisions emphasizing the need for the Tribunal to give deference to decisions of its co-ordinate benches. The High Court, following the precedent, quashed the Tribunal's order and remanded the proceedings for the Tribunal to consider the cited decisions and determine the maintainability of the appeal. The High Court clarified that it had not conclusively decided on the legal and factual aspects, leaving them open for further examination. The High Court addressed the challenge to the tribunal's order and the issue of premature appeal dismissal. The Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the appeal as premature, stating that deciding on goods yet to be provisionally assessed would be premature. The High Court noted the Petitioner's argument that the Tribunal had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed it as premature. The High Court, following the precedent, quashed the Tribunal's order and restored the appeal for the Tribunal to consider the maintainability after reviewing the cited decisions. The High Court clarified that it had not conclusively decided on the legal and factual aspects, leaving them open for further examination. The High Court analyzed the quashing and restoration of the appeal. The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the appeal as premature. The High Court, following the precedent, quashed the Tribunal's order and restored the appeal for the Tribunal to consider the maintainability after reviewing the cited decisions. The High Court clarified that it had not conclusively decided on the legal and factual aspects, leaving them open for further examination.
|
