2018 (9) TMI 26 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – TMI – Interpretation of Statute – Board's circular No.6/92 dated 29.5.1992 – SSI exemption – Clubbing of Turnover – no dummy units – maintainability of appeal – Held that:- The real issue in this appeal is regarding interpretation of Board's circular No.6/92 dated 29.5.1992 and the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal would lie before the Apex Court – appeal disposed off with liberty to challenge the same by filing an appeal under Section 35-L of Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Apex Court – present appeal not maintainable. – C. E. A. No. 57 of 2017 Dated:- 28-8-2018 – P. K. Jaiswal And S. K. Awasthi, JJ. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Alok Barthwal, learned Counsel for the respondent ORDER Heard. 2. This appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed by the Revenue against the final order dated 18.1.2017 (Annexure – A) passed by the Appellate Tribuna
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1.2014 (Annexure-A) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the learned Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee filed against order dated 12.08.2005 (Annexure-C) passed in order-inoriginal No.66/Comm/CEX/IND/05 by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Indore, whereby Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 78,72,452/- imposed on the respondent / assessee has been confirmed along with interest and penalty of incidental amount. 2.Shri Alok Barthwal, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal; and submitted that appeal shall lie against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi not being an order relating among other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty or excise or to the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment. 3.He submitted that looking to th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eported in 2008 (227) ELT 189 (P&H) and (5) Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-III v. Pravinbhai Narshibhai Patel Partner reported in 2017-TIOL-158-HC-AHM-CX. He has also drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) ELT 3 (SC); and submitted that appeal shall lie under Section 35-L and not under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the High Court. 4.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, so also the law laid down in the cases of Commissioner v. Kich Industries (supra), Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II v. Vadapalani Press & others (supra), Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula v. Special Machine (supra), Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa v. Primella Sanitary Products (P) Limited (supra) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiyana v. A.S.T. Paper Mills Limited (
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =