Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S Vartellus Speciality Materials ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal17 June 2015

CitationAppeal No.E/842/2012-DB; E/COD/15114/2014, E/CO/15076/2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that relates to rebate of excise duty on goods exported, by reason of the first proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act; such an appeal is therefore not maintainable and is dismissed, along with the cross-objection and the CO application that depend on it.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.E/842/2012-DB; E/COD/15114/2014, E/CO/15076/2014 [Arising out of OIA No.SRP/86-87/DMN/VAPI-I/2012-13, dt.21.08.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi Appellant

M/s Vartellus Speciality Materials India Pvt.Ltd. Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Dr. J. Nagori, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri M. Bindumadhavan, Advocate

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:17.06.2015

Order No. A/10808 / 2015 dt.17.06.2015

Per: P.K. Das

The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for verification and quantification of the rebate claim. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter. On the other side, the learned Advocate submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of rebate claim, is not maintainable. As per the First Proviso to Section 35B(1), no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relates to rebate of duty of Excise on goods exported to various countries. Both the sides submit that the appeal relates to rebate claim.

2. In view of that, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. The COD application and the cross objection filed by the Respondent are also dismissed.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 2

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