9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er he would not step into his shoes so far as exercising the rights under the Act is concerned - But the appellant has no independent right to prefer a statutory appeal without the consent or concurrence of the manufacturer - Decided against the assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing substantial questions of law as under :- (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not a manufacturer without recording any evidence, even when the applicant in statement of facts submit that he is a loan licencee considered as manufacturer under the Central Excise Law? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Loan Licencee was not a manufacturer when the Department has vide para 3.2 of the Manual of Instructions construe such person as manufacturer when the frame of reference before the Tribunal was not the issue? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in passing an order on merits when no issue were framed at all by the Commissioner of Central Excise and that the Superintendent of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as discharging the liability to pay excise duty in terms of the bond. When the remission sought for by the manufacturer was refused, he challenged the said order. When it was dismissed, he has abandoned the legal proceedings. It is, thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. It is well settled that an appeal is a statutory remedy provided to an aggrieved person. Once the statute provides a remedy to prefer an appeal, it has to be worked out under the Four Corners of the statute. When the appellant is not the person who is liable to pay excise duty, the question of his claim for remission of the said duty payable would not arise. Merely because, he executed a bond undertaking to pay the duty on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
