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>Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi clarifies excise duty liability for associations vs. individual manufacturers.</h1> <h3>STAINLESS STEEL PATTI MFG’S ASSOCIATION, Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</h3> STAINLESS STEEL PATTI MFG’S ASSOCIATION, Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 120 (Tribunal) Issues:- Maintainability of appeals by associations before the Tribunal- Competence of Superintendent to issue directions to associations- Lack of proper appeal filed by individual mill- Failure of Collector (Appeals) to address basic issuesAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with three appeals challenging a consolidated order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeals were filed by associations of manufacturers and an individual mill against the order. The Tribunal initially questioned the locus standi of the associations to file appeals but proceeded with the hearing. However, the Tribunal raised concerns regarding the maintainability of appeals by associations under the Central Excise Act and Rules.The Tribunal emphasized that excise duty liability rests on individual manufacturers of excisable goods, requiring them to comply with Excise Law provisions. It was observed that directions under the Act should be addressed to individual manufacturers, not associations. The judgment highlighted that the Superintendent's direction to associations for license compliance lacked legal basis and quasi-judicial determination.Regarding the individual mill's appeal, the Tribunal noted deficiencies in the appeal filing process. The appeal documents referred to associations, not the individual mill, indicating a lack of proper application of mind by the Collector (Appeals). As a result, the Tribunal set aside the entire order-in-appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to address the highlighted issues.In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the Collector (Appeals) for reevaluation in light of the identified issues. The judgment underscored the importance of proper appeal filing procedures and the necessity for individual manufacturers to adhere to Excise Law independently.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
