9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -8-2013 - M.R. Shah and Sonia Gokani, JJ. Shri R.J. Oza, Advocate, for the Appellant. JUDGMENT The present Tax Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Surat to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2012 passed by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT ) in Appeal No. E/807/2012 preferred by the appellant by which the Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat dated 5-9-2012 in OIO No. 50/Commr./ Surat-II/2012(De novo). 2. The appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether the Tribunal has committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 17 (Guj.), however has not, as such, discussed the facts and observed anything whether on facts the said decision would be applicable or not. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Srikumar Agencies reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.). No other submissions have been made. 4. Having heard Shri R.J. Oza, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [1970 (2) All ER 294] Lord Reid said, Lord Atkin s speech....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russel L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament. And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972 (2) WLR 537] Lord Morris said : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appear to have dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC s case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by learned Solicitor General. The CEGAT ought to have examined the cases individually and the articles involved. By clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the special features of each case disposing of the appeals in the manner done was not proper. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment in each case and remit the matter to CEGAT presently known as Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short CESTAT ) to be dealt with by the appropriate Bench. In view of the aforesaid order there is no need to answer the reference made. 5. However, in the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
