Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., Versus The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 1416 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 786 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-10-2018
Central Excise Appeal No. 82 of 2018
Central Excise
M. S. Sanklecha And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.
\nFor the Appellant : Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Ostwal i\/b. PROMPT Legal
\nFor the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. J.B. Mishra
\nORDER
\nP.C:
\nThis Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenges the order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).
\n2 The Appellant urges the following question of law for our consideration:
\n “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority?
\n3 At the request of the parties, the Appeal itself is being disposed of finally<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n sed without considering the issue at hand. This to conclude that the order of the Commissioner cannot be sustained. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ay if it thinks fit”, is not an arbitrary or subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal but a satisfaction reached through the filter of reasons in the context of the grievance of the parties before it. In the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal has concluded that the order of the Commissioner in appeal is, incapable of understanding without itself referring to the dispute and any part of the finding of the order which are impossible to understand. Therefore, although the Tribunal is undoubtedly entitled to remand a matter for fresh consideration, the same cannot be at its whim and fancy or mere ispi dixit but a conclusion based on reasons. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., Versus The Commissioner of CGST & Central ExciseCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 1416 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 786 (Bom.)BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 17-10-2018Central Excise Appeal No. 82 of 2018 Central ExciseM. S. Sanklecha And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate … Continue reading “Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., Versus The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise”<\/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-14699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14699","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=14699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nTherefore, after setting aside the order restored the proceedings to the Commissioner, for fresh disposal.
\n7 Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant points out that neither in the Review Order or in the Appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 7th June, 2013 of the Commissioner, is any grievance made of it, being incomprehensible. The issues raised in the appeal, challenged the conclusion of the Commissioner that the demand is barred by limitation. It is pointed out that the impugned order does not record the dispute which requires adjudication nor does it record the grievance of the parties. It merely proceeds on its perusal of the order of the Commissioner and comes to the conclusion that the order has been passed without any reasons inasmuch as same does not exhibit the mind of the author.
\n8 On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel fo<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n10 Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Mr. Jetly's submission that no prejudice is caused as the issue has only been remanded, is not correct. The party in whose favour the order is passed is certainly prejudiced if the order in its favour is being set aside without any reasons. Thus, prejudice is caused. Further, there is a ma<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n