9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the claim was accepted. The appeal of Revenue against the modification of rejection by the original authority in the order impugned before us does merit attention for that very reason. However, the conformity thereof should be tested before the authority that granted such relief. The appeal of Revenue is allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority to subject the claim of the appellant therein to relief. The eligibility to consequential relief, including interest for delayed disbursal, is dependent on this determination. The first appellate authority is directed to consider all the appeals before it afresh after giving due consideration to the submissions made by the respective appellants therein - appeal allowed by way of remand. - EXCISE APPEAL NO: 1165 of 2009, 1353 of 2010, 1486 of 2010, 573 of 2011 AND EXCISE CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 44 OF 2010 - A/86918-86921/2019 - Dated:- 24-10-2019 - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE DR SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri N N Prabhudesai, Superintendents (AR) with Shri S Hasija, Superintendents (AR) Advocate for Revenue Shri D R Gadekar, Consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The entitlement to refund ordered by first appellate authority, the upholding of consequential relief by the two lower authorities and the interest allowed by the first appellate authority comprise the three appeals of Revenue before us. The assessee has filed a cross-objection against the appeal of Revenue challenging the grant of consequential relief. 3. The assessee had also filed an appeal against the upholding of the rejection of their claim for ₹ 67,86,348 by the first appellate authority which had been dealt with earlier by the Tribunal without going into the merits of the sanction and vide final order no. A/86549/2019 dated 9th May 2019, indicating disinclination to accept the contention of the assessee that the bar of limitation was inoperable for the earlier period also. This accounts for three of the appeals of Revenue and one cross-objection now before us. 4. The second claim made in 2010 was rejected by both authorities and is also before us. In view of the simplicity of this appeal, we consider it appropriate to dispose that off at the outset. We take note that the first appellate authority did not only reverse the stand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other submissions which do not overcome this settled law, we uphold the impugned order in which duty liability has been upheld. 6. We now turn to the appeal against the acceptance on the part of the first appellate authority of the exclusion from duty liability for a limited period that is presumed by Revenue to be a decision on merit. We do not think so. The exercise of jurisdiction by any appellate forum is restricted to the dispute before that authority and the effect of the order is limited to that. There was, understandably, no appeal of Revenue against rejection of the claim in its entirety in the order of the original authority and in the absence of such appeal, the decision of the first appellate authority is but a decision that, presuming the validity of eligibility in the order of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nanded, on the bar of limitation. While we had, on the former occasion, held that the claim of eligibility for the earlier period was not valid in law, the challenge to the grant of eligibility for exemption for the period thereafter, which is now before us, will have to be decided in the context in which the claim was accepted. Doubtle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... status of the Electricity Board being different from the State Government about -which there is no dispute - the exemption has to be rejected on that ground alone. We are thus satisfied that the conditions are not fulfilled by the appellant Board and, therefore, it is not entitled to exemption under the notification as held by the Allahabad High Court in U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) and Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department (supra). The decision in Electricity Poles Manufacturing (supra) does not correctly lay down the law. 9. It was submitted that the decision in Electricity Poles Manufacturing (supra) was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2001 vide 2006 (202) ELT A144 (SC). From the text of the order, it appears that the appeal of the Department was summarily dismissed observing that Court found no reason to interfere with the order. It is well settled that summary dismissal of SLP/Civil Appeal by the Supreme Court does not amount to affirmation of the judgment/order of the Court/Tribunal appealed against, on merit. It merely means that the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter. As a matter of fact, learned DR appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
