https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205240 The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the revenue and dismissing the appeal. It found that the appellant, a partnership firm with a loan license, did not have locus standi as they were not the manufacturer responsible for duty payment. The Court emphasized that an appeal must be pursued within statutory boundaries and that the appellant, not directly liable for duty payment, could not appeal independently without the manufacturer's consent. The Tribunal's dismissal was upheld, highlighting the distinction between duty payment obligations and the right to appeal. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205240 The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the revenue and dismissing the appeal. It found that the appellant, a partnership firm with a loan license, did not have locus standi as they were not the manufacturer responsible for duty payment. The Court emphasized that an appeal must be pursued within statutory boundaries and that the appellant, not directly liable for duty payment, could not appeal independently without the manufacturer's consent. The Tribunal's dismissal was upheld, highlighting the distinction between duty payment obligations and the right to appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205240