Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain Versus Mars Stationery Pvt. Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 26 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – TMI
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-8-2018
C. E. A. No. 57 of 2017
Central Excise
P. K. Jaiswal And S. K. Awasthi, JJ.
\nShri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant
\nShri Alok Barthwal, learned Counsel for the respondent
\nORDER
\nHeard.
\n2. 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 Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that Board's circular No.6\/92 dated 29.5.1992 does not debar clubbing of turnover and it is also observed that there is no allegation that the SSI units were dummy units and allowed the appeal.
\n3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in this appeal the issue is regarding interpretation of Board's circular No.6\/92 date<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ndent \/ assessee has been confirmed along with interest and penalty of incidental amount. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 35-L and not under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the High Court. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain Versus Mars Stationery Pvt. Ltd.Central Excise2018 (9) TMI 26 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – TMIMADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 28-8-2018C. E. A. No. 57 of 2017 Central ExciseP. K. Jaiswal And S. K. Awasthi, JJ. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Alok Barthwal, learned … Continue reading “Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain Versus Mars Stationery Pvt. 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-13459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13459","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=13459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13459\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 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.
\n 3.He submitted that looking to the controversy, an order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal shall lie to the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that in identical facts and circumstances of the case, similar question was raised before the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Kich Industries reported in 2014 (305) ELT 107 (Gujarat); and other decisions (1) Commissioner of Cen<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 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 (supra), Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-III v. Pravinbhai Narshibhai Patel Partner (supra) and Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited v. Collector of Customs (supra), we permit the appellant \/ department to withdraw this appeal and direct the department to assail the order by filing an appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Apex Court. However, on filing true cop<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n