9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise”, it is the Apex Court alone which is competent to adjudicate the said dispute. The jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted - appeal is rejected - C.E.A. No. 82 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2011 - N. Kumar and Ravi Malimath, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Y. Hariprasad, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri T.M. Subramanian, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al products. Thereafter the assessee filed a refund claim which was rejected by the lower authorities. The assessee approached the Commissioner of Appeals who upheld the order of the lower authority. In the appeal preferred to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had removed the goods only on the strength of CT-3 Certificate issued by the Department. The user industry had also followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit reversed. 4. The revenue relies on Notification No. 22/2003 and 43/2001 and contends that the assessee in not entitled to the said benefit. The Tribunal relying on Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit. 5. This appeal was admitted on 17-9-2009 to consider the following questions of law. (a) Whether the CESTAT is correct i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the two Notifications on which reliance is placed by the revenue. In other words, the appeal involves the interpretation of the aforesaid two Notifications. As the order relate to among other things, the determination of question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise , it is the Apex Court alone whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
