2014 (11) TMI 1007

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Cigarette was one of the goods that was entitled to the benefit of exemptions. The appellant (New Tobacco Company) who enjoyed the benefits claimed refund of an amount of Rs. 1,89,45,120/-. The claim was rejected and show cause notice was issued for payment of excise duty for the month of July and August, 2000. The show cause notice was challenged in W.P. (C) 446/2001. 2. The learned single Judge passed an interim order directing the refund and also directed the appellant (herein) to pay the excise duty from the month of July, 2000 onwards. Despite the interim order of this Court refund was not granted. The writ petition finally came to be allowed. The show cause notice was quashed and the interim orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....014 [2014 (310) E.L.T. A85 (S.C.)]. The Supreme Court passed the following order. "The order of the High Court under challenge dealt with the appeal preferred by the assessee-appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. 89 of 2008. The appeal was admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law : (i)      Whether the CESTAT was correct in disposing of the appeal filed by the appellant after only giving them an opportunity of arguments on the stay application? (ii)     Whether the Courts below have correctly a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tobacco (P) Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 725] wherein this Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 154 and Schedule IX of the Finance Act. We find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the questions which the High Court had to answer were not really dependent on the upholding of the constitutional validity of Section 154 and the High Court ought to have answered those questions." 4. The substantial questions of law referred to by the Supreme Court are the one framed by this Court. 5. It is the contention of the appellant (herein) that the Tribunal in the first instance did not deal with the questions that arose in the appeal: and upon the decision of the Tribun....