The Pr. Commissioner of GST, Delhi South Commissionerate Versus Precision Pipes & Profiles Co. Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 395 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMI
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-1-2018
CEAC 28\/2017
Central Excise
MR. SANJIV KHANNA & MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ.
\nAppellant Through Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Bhavya Dubey, Advocate.
\nRespondent Through Mr. R. Santhanam & Mr. A.P. Sinha, Advocates.
\nO R D E R
\nHaving heard counsel for the parties, we are inclined to frame the following substantial question of law:-
\n(i) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee holding that the Revenue could not have app<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n lso stated that the order passed by the Allahabad High Court is an ex-parte order. In the present case, he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside with an order of reward. He states that the Tribunal has not decided the question whether the respondent assessee was entitled to CENVAT credit of additional customs duty paid through DEPB receipts. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Pr. Commissioner of GST, Delhi South Commissionerate Versus Precision Pipes & Profiles Co. Ltd.Central Excise2018 (2) TMI 395 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMIDELHI HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 11-1-2018CEAC 28\/2017 Central ExciseMR. SANJIV KHANNA & MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Appellant Through Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Bhavya Dubey, Advocate. Respondent … Continue reading “The Pr. Commissioner of GST, Delhi South Commissionerate Versus Precision Pipes & Profiles Co. Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10346","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn view of the statement made by Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate, we are setting aside the impugned order with a direction for remand, without commenting on merits. We would clarify that the issue would be examined afresh, without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. The respondent-assessee states that he would also request the Tribunal to examine the question wheth<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n