9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T did not decide the matter on merits, its decision ‘ holding that it lacked jurisdiction- is set aside. The view taken by the Registry of the CESTAT is plainly erroneous; the CESTAT is directed to hear and decide the appeal preferred before it by the present petitioner on its merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law. - Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P.(C) 2594/2014, CM APPL.5381/2014 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manu Seshadri with Mr. Arjun Syal, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate for R-2and3. Mr. Hemang Gupta, Advocate for R-1. ORDER Issue notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Hemant Gupta, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CESTAT vested with the petitioner in view of the fact that the claim for refund was in respect of the period 2005-2010. On the merits, it was contended that the petitioner s claim could not be denied since admittedly the activity was not subjected to service tax. The Revenue, on the other hand, contends that by virtue of an amendment made to Section 83 in 2012, the appellate remedy is barred and the petitioner only can approach the revisional authority by way of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act. We are of the opinion that the Revenue s contentions lacks merit. The matter is covered by a recent ruling of this Court in M/s Glyph International Limited v. Union of India (W.P. (C) 6224/2013 decided on 20.03.2014) rejecting the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction. The reason is that when a special Act on matters governed by that Act confers a jurisdiction to an established court, as distinguished from a persona designata, without any words of limitation then, the ordinary incident of procedure of that court including any general right of appeal or revision against its decision is attracted. 22. But an exception to the aforementioned rule is on matters where the special Act sets of it a self-contained Code the applicability of the general law procedure would be impliedly excluded. (See Upadhyaya Hargovind Devshanker v. Dhirendrasinh Virbhadrasinnhji Solanki). (emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the amendment to Section 83 by making a specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
