9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-aside the operative part of the order. There is a distinction between an order and the grounds on which it is based. The challenge to the grounds on which it is passed or the basis on which it is founded is to that end. Section 35L is not limited to certain aspects of an order referred to in Clause (b) of sub Section (1) therein. It pertains to the order itself and all aspects thereof. Appeal dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. - CEA No. 69 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 30-1-2017 - S. J. Vazifdar, Chief Justice And Anupinder Singh Grewal, JJ. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent ORDER S. J. Vazifdar, C. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to the benefit of a Notification dated 01.03.2003 issued under Section 5A of the Act, which exempts clearances, specified in column (2) of the Table therein for home consumption of excisable goods of the description specified in the Annexure appended to this notification from so much of the aggregate of the excise duty specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the special duty of excise specified thereon in the Second Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the table. Serial No. 1 of the Table provides for the first clearances up to an aggregate value not exceeding Rupees One Cror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority observing that the order had taken into account the relevant facts such as common control, financial flow back in absence of manufacturing facilities at the associate concern M/s Chirag Packaging Machines (Pvt.) Ltd. (CPMPL), common employees and office between the two entities and the rent free space given to the Company and that it has been established that two units are to be clubbed by considering their entitlement to the benefit of the Notification. It is also held that the adjudicating authority had established that the name 'Chirag' did not belong to the assessee but actually belonged to others. 7. It is not open to us to express any opinion on the merits of the contention as we have upheld the preliminary objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act. 9. As mentioned earlier the substantial question raised in that matter was whether the clearance made by various units was liable to be clubbed for the purpose of deciding eligibility under the notification in that case, which is admittedly similar to the notification in the case before us. We are bound by the judgment. The appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. 10. Mrs. Suri, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the judgment in Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Panchkula Vs. M/s Special Machine', Karnal(supra) is distinguishable. She contends that in the present case, the assessee has challenged the impugned order onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds on which it is passed or the basis on which it is founded is to that end. Section 35L is not limited to certain aspects of an order referred to in Clause (b) of sub Section (1) therein. It pertains to the order itself and all aspects thereof. 12. A view to the contrary would lead to considerable difficulty in the operation of section 35L of the Act. It would then require an appeal on certain aspects pertaining to the order to be filed before the Supreme Court and in respect of other aspects before other Courts. This was not the intention of the legislature. 13. Mrs. Suri relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., MANU/MH/1548/2014. It is true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
