C.C.E, Lucknow vs Durga Trading Company
- CitationExcise Appeal No.2697 of 2006
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an adjudication order has been quashed and remitted for de novo determination by an earlier final order of the Tribunal, an appeal directed against that same adjudication order is rendered infructuous and is liable to be dismissed as such; the appellate authority need not consider the merits of the impugned order, and the Revenue's grievances are preserved for urging before the adjudicating authority on remand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Arising out of the order in original No.19/Commr/LKO/2005 dated 27.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner , Central Excise, Lucknow.
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Technical Member
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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, Lucknow . Appellant
Vs.
Durga Trading Company .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri R.K. Gupta, A.R. for the Appellant/Revenue
Present Shri Amit Awasthi with Ms. Yashasvini Chandra, Advocates for the respondents.
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Technical Member
Final Order No. 52168/2015
Per Justice G. Raghuram:
Heard the ld. A.R. for the appellant-Revenue and Shri Amit Awasthi, ld. Advocate for the respondent/assessee.
2. This appeal is preferred against the adjudication order dated 27.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow. The grievance leading to this appeal is regarding the dropping of the demand of duty on certain aspects, vacating seizures and failing to impose certain penalties. The gravamen of the Revenues case is set out in the grounds of appeal.
3. Against the same adjudication order, the respondent M/s Durga Trading Company as well as other co-noticees of the proceedings, preferred Excise Appeal No.3257/2005 and batch before this Tribunal. By the Final Order dated 12.8.2011, the Tribunal quashed the adjudication order (impugned herein) and remitted the matter for de novo determination, in accordance with law and in conformity with observations recorded in the said judgment.
5. Since the same adjudication order stands effaced by the judgment of the Tribunal, appellate consideration of the order impugned herein, is unwarranted. The appeal is therefore dismissed as infructuous, preserving the liberty of the appellant/Revenue to urge any of the grievances presented in this appeal before the adjudicating authority, when such authority considers the matter afresh pursuant to the judgment of this Tribunal (supra). No costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(H.K. Thakur)
Technical Member
scd/
1
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