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>Court allows appeal challenging Tribunal's rejection, finds order appealable under Central Excise Act.</h1> <h3>JAI AMBEY CONTAINERS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> JAI AMBEY CONTAINERS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2009 (241) E.L.T. 170 (H. P.) Issues involved:1. Maintainability of the appeal filed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.Detailed Analysis:The appeal in question was filed by M/s. Jai Ambey Containers Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 20-2-2008 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench, Court No. 1. The Tribunal had rejected the appeal in limine on the grounds of maintainability, stating that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under challenge was not appealable as it did not fall within the ambit of sub-section (1) of Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. An interim relief application was allowed, staying the operation of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court admitted the appeal based on the substantial question of law regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Court noted the relevant facts, where the appellant had set up an Industrial Unit in the Industrial area of Kala Amb, claiming exemptions under a notification for substantial expansion. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, and subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.The High Court found the Tribunal's view to be incorrect as the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was under Section 35-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, making it appealable under Section 35-B(1)(b) to the Tribunal. The Court rejected the argument that the Tribunal had the discretion to refuse to admit the appeal under the second proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 35-B, as the case involved interpretation of a notification and not just the duty amount. The Court held in favor of the assessee-appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the case for a decision on merits. The Court directed that the operation of the Commissioner (Appeals) order should not be enforced pending the Tribunal's decision on the application for interim relief.In conclusion, the High Court found the appeal maintainable before the Tribunal and ruled in favor of the appellant, directing a reevaluation of the case on its merits by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
