Shri Arun Goyal vs Cce & St, Meerut-I
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/54041 - 54044/2014-EX[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order cannot stand where the Tribunal has already, in the appellant's own case for an earlier period, set aside the Commissioner's order on the same issue, and the present appeals are therefore allowed on the strength of that earlier decision without further examination of the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.17/Commr/MRT-I/2014 dated 26.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Meerut]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
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 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?
__________________________________________________
Tirupati LPG Ltd.
Shri Gyan Chand Goyal,
Shri Ankit Garg,
Shri Arun Goyal Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Meerut-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.K Anand, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri.Yashpal Sharma, DR
Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 02/03/2015
FINAL ORDER NO. _50612-50615/2015
PER: RAKESH KUMAR
Heard both the sides.
2. These appeals have been filed alongwith stay applications against the Commissioners order dated 26.05.2014 by which duty demand of Rs.9,86,67,127/- has been confirmed against the appellant company for the period April 2012 to December, 2012 alongwith interest under section 11AB and penalty of equal amount has been imposed on them under section 11AC. Besides this penalty of Rs.50,000/- each has been imposed on Shri Gyan Chand Goyal, Shri Arun Goyal and Shri Ankit Garg, Directors of the appellant company. Though today these matters are listed for hearing of the stay applications only after hearing this matter for sometime the Bench was of the view that these appeals can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived for hearing of the appeal and with the consent of both the sides, we heard the matter for final disposal.
3. Shri K. Anand, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that in respect of appellants matters for the previous period from July, 2003 to March, 2012, the Tribunal vide its order dated 19th Feb., 2015 has allowed the appeal and that in view of this the impugned order is not sustainable.
4. Shri Yashpal Sharma, the ld. DR agrees that in the appellants own case for the previous period, the Tribunal vide order dated 19.02.2015 has set aside the Commissioners order and allowed the appeal.
5. We have considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. It is seen that in respect of the appellants own case for the previous period, the Tribunal vide order dated 19.02.2015 had allowed the appeals. In view of this, the impugned order is also set aside and the appeals are allowed. The stay applications also stands disposed of.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(S.K.MOHANTY) (RAKESH KUMAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Anita
0
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