Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Gtc Industries Ltd
- CitationAPPEAL No. E/964/05-Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal dismisses the Revenue's appeal on the sole ground that the question whether the appellant's process of embossing aluminium foil amounts to manufacture has already been decided in the assessee's favour by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, and that the Revenue's pendency-before-Larger-Bench ground therefore no longer survives; the Tribunal's decision rests on the binding effect of that Larger Bench decision as upheld by the High Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BR(353)10/MV/2005 dated 27.1.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-V)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V Appellant Vs. GTC Industries Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 5.3.2015 Date of Decision: 5.3.2015
ORDER NO
Per: P.K. Jain
The issue involved in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the process of embossing on aluminium foil and aluminium foil cut to shape amounts to manufacture and chargeable to duty. The main ground of appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment pertaining to Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. instead of noting the fact that the Tribunal has referred the matter in the assessees own case to the Larger Bench in view of the conflicting judgments of the Tribunal on the same issue.
2. Learned AR reiterates the grounds of appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter has since been decided by the Larger Bench in their own case and is reported in 2005 (184) ELT 29 (Tri.-LB), in their favour. The learned counsel further submits that the said judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has also been upheld by the Honble Bombay High Court as reported in 2011 (266) ELT 160 (Bom.). Similar view has been taken by the Honble Bombay High Court in subsequent decision reported in 2014 (302) ELT 535 (Bom.).
4. In view of the fact that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has held in favour of the respondent and the main ground in the appeal is that the issue is pending before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and no more holds good. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)
(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)
tvu 1 3
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