C.C.E., Delhi-Iii vs Jsl Stainless Ltd
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/53055/2014 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the first proviso to section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to entertain an appeal against an order relating to rebate of excise duty on exportation of goods to outside India; where the appeal concerns such a rebate claim, it must be dismissed as not maintainable before the Tribunal, and the proper remedy lies before the Revisionary Authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.101/SVS/RTK/2014 dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Rohtak (Haryana)]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
C.C.E., Delhi-III Appellant
Vs.
JSL Stainless Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R.
Present for the Respondent: Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 20.07.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 52362/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Heard Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. D.R. for the Revenue and Shri. K.K. Gupta ld. Advocate for the respondent.
2. At the outset, the ld. Advocate for the respondent submits that the appeal filed by the Department before this Tribunal is not maintainable in view of the first proviso to section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. According to the statutory provisions, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any appeal against the order, which relates to rebate of duty of excise on exportation of goods to outside India. Shri R.K. Mishra, the ld. DR also accepts such proposition of law and submits that due to inadvertence, the appeal has been field before this Tribunal instead of filing the same before Revisionary Authority.
3. Since the issue involved in the present appeal relates to rebate claim of excise duty on account of export of excisable goods to outside the country, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected as infructuous.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 2 E/53055/2014 EX. [SM]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free