Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (Earlier known as Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax), Faridabad Versus M/s Delton Cables Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 968 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – 2019 (26) G. S. T. L. 168 (P & H)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-9-2018
CEA No.15 of 2018 (O&M)
Central Excise
MR RAJESH BINDAL AND MR AMIT RAWAL, JJ.
For The Appellant : Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate
For The Respondent : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate
ORDER
RAJESH BINDAL J.
The revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 05.06.2017 in Appeal No.E/60555 of 2016, raising the following substantial questions of law:-
“i) Whether the execution of a bond or letter of undertaking by the noticee is not the pre requisite condition for export without payment of duty?
ii) Whether the impugned final order is sustainable in t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
as under:-
“5. We may also record that similar question came to be considered by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s Shilpa Copper Wire Industries reported in 2011 (269) ELT 77 (Guj.) and after considering the similar question at paragraph 14, 15 and 16 it was observed thus:-
14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after considering their submissions, we are of the view that the issue raised by the Revenue in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ginni International Ltd. and Snaghi Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise- 2006 (206) ELT 854 (Tri. Bang.). So far as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is concerned, it is true that the appeal is admitted by the Apex Court, however, no stay was granted by the Apex Court. It is, however, more important to note that the decision of the Tribun
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pugned order had held that once Development Commissioner giving permission to the appellant, a 100% EOU, to sell goods in DTA up to a specified value. Revenue cannot go beyond the permission and dispute it holding that for fixing the limit only physical exports and not deemed exports should have been taken into account.
15. In view of the above settled legal position and considering the fact that the issue is settled by the Apex Court by those very judgments on which the Tribunal has placed reliance while deciding the case of the present respondent, we are of the view that no purpose will be served in keeping this matter pending, awaiting the outcome of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), especially when in two other matters, the Apex Court has already dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue.
16. In the above fact situation, we are of the view that no question of law much less any substantial question of law, arises out of the orde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =