Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Vinergy International Pvt. ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/97/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's appeal jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not extend to an appeal against interest consequential upon an Order-in-Appeal where the Revenue has already preferred a revision application before the Revisionary Authority against that earlier Order-in-Appeal; such a consequential appeal is therefore not maintainable before the Tribunal and must be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-193/2011/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ dated 11.11.2011, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Rajkot)
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
M/s. Vinergy International Pvt. Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Revenue : Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : None
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 26.05.2015
ORDER No. A/10679 / 2015 Dated 26.05.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), where it has been held that the Respondent is entitled to interest on the amount of rebate paid to them after three months from the date of receipt of refund application under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that on earlier occasion, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the rebate claim against which Revenue preferred appeal before the Revisionary Authority. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue placed a letter dated 25.5.2015 issued by Assistant Commissioner (RRA), Central Excise & Customs, HQ, Rajkot, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (AR), CESTAT before the Bench. In this letter, it is stated that Revision application filed by the department against OIA dated 13.12.2010 has been decided by the Joint Secretary (Revision Application), Government of India, New Delhi, vide order No. 867-868/2013-CX dated 05.07.2013, in favour of the assessee and the same has been accepted by the department.
3. I find that the Revenue filed appeal against the rebate claim before the Joint Secretary (Revision Application) and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the payment of interest consequent to the earlier Order-in-Appeal, would not lie before this Tribunal as per the first proviso to Section 35 B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) .KL
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