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 remands CESTAT decision, stresses statutory compliance, orders reconsideration</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax Versus M/s. Cethar Vessels Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The High Court set aside CESTAT's decision to close the case for statistics and remanded it for proper consideration. The Court found fault with CESTAT's ... Whether the CESTAT is correct in closing this case for the purpose of Statistics holding that both sides are at liberty to file application before the Tribunal to re-open the matter as and when the case is disposed of by the High Court or in case of any change of circumstance? - Whether the CESTAT is correct in passing an order that is not in consonance/conformity with the provision of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944? HELD THAT:- The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to await the decision, which is now pending before the High Court at Ahmedabad in the case of Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 1072 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Matter remanded remanded to the Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Correctness of closing the case for statistics by CESTAT2. Compliance with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944Analysis:1. The first issue revolves around the correctness of CESTAT's decision to close the case for statistics, allowing parties to file applications for reopening after disposal by the High Court or in case of any change of circumstance. The High Court found fault with CESTAT's approach, emphasizing that under Section 35-C (1) of the Act, the Tribunal has the authority to pass orders confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision appealed against. The High Court noted that CESTAT should have either kept the matter pending until a decision by the Larger Bench or remanded it for fresh adjudication. Failure to exercise these options led the High Court to set aside CESTAT's decision and remand the matter back for proper consideration.2. The second issue pertains to the compliance of CESTAT's order with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court highlighted that the Tribunal's decision did not align with the provisions of the Act, as it failed to address the correctness of the orders passed by the adjudicating authority. The High Court expressed surprise at CESTAT's reasoning for closing the proceedings, emphasizing that the Tribunal should have either kept the matter pending or remanded it for fresh consideration. Drawing parallels with a previous case, the High Court concluded that CESTAT's order lacked justification and interfered with the Tribunal's decision, remanding the matter for proper review.In summary, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of CESTAT's closure of the case for statistics and compliance with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court found fault with CESTAT's decision, emphasizing the Tribunal's authority to either keep the matter pending or remand it for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the High Court set aside CESTAT's order and remanded the matter back for proper consideration, ensuring compliance with the statutory provisions and principles of law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
