TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Affirms Tribunal Decision Applying Precedent</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS Versus RISHIROOP RUBBER (I) LTD</h3> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the order based on the application of ... Whether CESTAT was justified in allowing appeal of respondent by placing sole reliance in the case of Jayant Agro Organics Ltd., [2003 (9) TMI 133 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Held that:- Decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Jayant Agro Organics Limited (supra) has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal whereby its earlier decision in the case of Jayant Agro Organics Limited (supra) has merely been applied to the facts of the present case. - appeal does not give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interfernece - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Application of precedent - Substantial question of law raised.Analysis:The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai. The appellant proposed a substantial question of law regarding the justification of the Tribunal in allowing the respondent's appeal by relying solely on the case of Jayant Agro Organics Ltd., 2003 (157) ELT 684. Both sides agreed that the issues were covered in favor of the assessee by the decision in the mentioned case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on merits and dismissed the revenue's appeals as infructuous. The respondent's advocate highlighted a Supreme Court decision confirming the Tribunal's order based on the Jayant Agro Organics case. The High Court noted that since the Supreme Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision in the Jayant Agro Organics case, there was no infirmity in the Tribunal's application of its earlier decision to the present case. Therefore, the appeal did not raise a substantial question of law and was dismissed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
