Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (8) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sified as goods falling under sub-heading No. 7001.90 and duty at the rate of 40% advance + 15% (SED) was shown to have been paid by the said manufacturer. It appears that the manufacturer namely M/s. Metal Lamp Caps (I) Ltd., Mysore filed a refund claim on the ground that the said lead glass tubings fall under sub-heading 7008.10 and not under 7001.90. The rates to be prescribed is Nil under that sub-heading. The order-in-original dated 5-2-1993 placed on record at Annexure : A made by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Mysore, shows; that the material facts have been taken into consideration. From para 10 of the order, it appears that earlier also, classification was challenged by way of an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etc. with which I respectfully agree. No new evidence has been put forth before me to take a different view." Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Copy of the order made by the Tribunal on 14-6-2000 is placed on record vide Annexure : C. The Tribunal has reproduced finding recorded by the Collector (Appeals), Bangalore and has held as under. "We agree with the finding that it is not open to the purchaser of the goods to reopen classification approved by the proper officer having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Metal Lamps Caps (I) Ltd. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cated by the authority at Mysore to the petitioner, yet the appeal was preferred before the appellate authority at Bangalore. Against the order passed in the appeal, the Tribunal at Delhi was moved and not the Tribunal at Bombay. Thus the forum hearing a jurisdiction was rightly approached. According to our opinion against the decision rendered by the Tribunal the petitioner must approach the High Court having a jurisdiction. Amount of duty was paid by the manufacturer and claim for refund was lodged by the manufacturer as well as the petitioner at Mysore. Thus the authority having a jurisdiction was approached. 5.Mr. Dave submitted that the consequences have fallen in the State of Gujarat and therefore, this Court had jurisdiction. 6.M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ision of the Supreme Court." Thus, the Court has pointed out that the fate of the litigation was already concluded in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore, it was of no use to relegate the party to go either to Delhi or Calcutta High Court. Termination of the service was the cause of action and that the order was served in Gujarat coupled with the fact that the fate of litigation stood concluded by the decision of the Apex Court referred in the judgment, in our opinion, the court has held that it has jurisdiction. In the instant case, duty was initially paid by the manufacturer within the territorial limits of Mysore and proceedings were initiated before Assistant Commissioner, Mysore by the manufacturer which were term .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tter to ask the petitioner to go to that Court, which has jurisdiction. In the instant case, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Bangalore. The petitioner challenged that order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bangalore, before the CEGAT and it is this order which is challenged before this High Court. Therefore, the real question is that whether the order which is made by the Tribunal can be challenged before this High Court ? We are of the view that when such is the situation, the petitioner should be directed to approach the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. In the case of Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills and Other, reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 284 (S.C.) = (1984) 2 SCC 646, the Apex Court has pointe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates