Excise & Customs : Jurisdiction of High Court as an appellate forum would depend upon issues adjudicated and decided in order in original; hence, where order in original decided dispute relating to rate of duty, even issues relating to invocation of extended period of limitation could not be raised before High Court
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
v.
Nestle India Ltd.*
SANJIV KHANNA AND V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
CEAC NO. 9 OF 2014
CM NOS. 4106 & 4107 OF 2014
AUGUST 12, 2014
Section 35G, of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 83, of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 130, of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Maintainability of - High Court - Tribunal passed an order holding that 'Nestle Tea Premix' should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 2101.20 of excise Tariff, as claimed by revenue and not under Entry No. 2108.99, as claimed by assessee - Tribunal also held that extended period of limitation was not invocable - Department filed appeal before High Court limited to issue of invocation of extended period - HELD : Jurisdiction of High Court as an appellate forum would depend upon issues adjudicated and decided in order in original - Since, in this case, order in original decided dispute relating to rate of duty, present appeal is not maintainable before High Court - Appeal was returned accordingly [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee]
Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Appellant. V. Lakshmikumaran and Aditya Bhattacharya, Advs., for the Respondent.
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
v.
Nestle India Ltd.*
SANJIV KHANNA AND V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
CEAC NO. 9 OF 2014
CM NOS. 4106 & 4107 OF 2014
AUGUST 12, 2014
Section 35G, of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 83, of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 130, of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Maintainability of - High Court - Tribunal passed an order holding that 'Nestle Tea Premix' should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 2101.20 of excise Tariff, as claimed by revenue and not under Entry No. 2108.99, as claimed by assessee - Tribunal also held that extended period of limitation was not invocable - Department filed appeal before High Court limited to issue of invocation of extended period - HELD : Jurisdiction of High Court as an appellate forum would depend upon issues adjudicated and decided in order in original - Since, in this case, order in original decided dispute relating to rate of duty, present appeal is not maintainable before High Court - Appeal was returned accordingly [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee]
Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Appellant. V. Lakshmikumaran and Aditya Bhattacharya, Advs., for the Respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment