Kaydour Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Central GST Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 1550 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-10-2018
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2018
Central Excise
M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
\nMr. Mahesh Raichandani, i\/b UBR Legal, for the Appellant.
\nMr. Sham Walve, a\/w Ms. Sneha Prabhu, for the Respondent.
\nORDER :
\n1. This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“the Act”) challenges the order dated 27th December 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”).
\n2. The Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration:
\n(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstanc<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rrect and justified in passing a nonspeaking order which does not give any finding on the merits of the matter and the submissions of the Appellant regarding demand of interest? = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n bove view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kaydour Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Central GST CommissionerateCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 1550 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMIBOMBAY HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 23-10-2018CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2018 Central ExciseM.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. Mr. Mahesh Raichandani, i\/b UBR Legal, for the Appellant. Mr. Sham Walve, a\/w Ms. Sneha Prabhu, … Continue reading “Kaydour Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Central GST Commissionerate”<\/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-14735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14735","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=14735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14735\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Regarding Question (a) :
\n(a) The impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that the Appellant has neither contested the demands on merits before the Lower Authority or before it. Thus, it had no occasion to deal with the merits of the demands.
\n(b) Shri. Raichandani, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the Appeal, states that the grounds were urged in the Memo of Appeal with regard to the challenge of the demand on merits. Therefore, it is his submission that the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the demand was not contested before the Tribu<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Regarding Question (b) :
\n(a) This question as raised is not an issue which has been urged by the Appellant before the Tribunal and therefore, the question does not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal.
\n(b) However, Shri. Raichandani seeks to invite our attention to the order of the Commissioner where this submission of the Appellant was recorded. It is on that basis Shri. Raichandani submits that this issue arises in this case and warrants admission.
\n(c) In our view, unless the issue as raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has occasion to decide\/adjudicate upon the issue, no substantial question of law can<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n