M/S. Adi Loknath Fashion (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.EA-75578/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the demand relates to goods exported out of India without payment of duty, since proviso (c) to Section 35B(1) places such matters before the Government of India; the appeal is accordingly not maintainable before the Tribunal and is dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.19/KOL-III/2013 dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
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 Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s. Adi Loknath Fashion (P) Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant (s)
Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 28.09.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75543/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. This application is filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.26.76 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty.
2. At the outset Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, ld.Consultant for the applicant submitted that the issue relates to non-production of proof of export, for the exports carried out, during the relevant period. Also, the demand has been confirmed on the said grounds. It is his submission that the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit, but dismissed their appeal for default in making pre-deposit of the entire amount of Rs.25.00 Lakhs.
3. The ld.AR for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of appeal before this forum. He submits that the demand had been confirmed in relation to goods exported out of India without payment of duty. Therefore in view of proviso (c) to Section 35B(1) of Central Excise Act this Tribunal has no jurisdiction as the appeal lies before the Govt. of India.
4. We agree with the contention of the ld.AR for the Revenue. Since the issue relates to export of goods outside India, without payment of duty, the appropriate forum for filing the appeal against the ld.Commissioner(Appeals)s order is Govt. of India. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being non-maintainable with liberty to the appellant to file appeal before appropriate forum. Stay Petition also disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
3 Appeal No. EA-75578/14
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