In an appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise challenging a CESTAT order, the bench held that no substantial question of law arises as a prior Central Excise Application had been dismissed. The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-= : 1 : =-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.108 OF 2005
Commissioner of Central Excise ..Appellant.
V/s.
Valiji Tinwala Partner of M/s.
Deluxe Drums ..Respondent.
Mr.R.V.Desai, senior counsel with Mrs.S.V.Bharucha and
S.M.Shah for appellant.
Mr.Naresh Thakker for respondents.
CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2006.
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
the respondent. By this appeal, the appellant is
seeking to raise the following question of law:-
" Whether the CESTAT was correct in setting
aside the instant case, citing the decision of
Tribunal in a similar issue, in case of
M/s.Dhimant Trading Co. and others vide order
No.-C-II/4433 to 4456/WZB dated 31/12/2002 whereas
the Tribunal vide the above orders remanded the
case to requantify ? "
2. In the present case, the dispute pertains to
denial of credit on account of discrepancy in the
dealers invoices and the goods actually received in the
-= : 2 : =-
factory. The invoice refers to coils whereas the goods
received were ‘sheets’. The Tribunal following its
decision in the case of Dhimant Trading Co. as well as
Standard Drum Mfg.Co. and several other cases decided
on 31/12/02 held that as long as the weight of sheets
and weight of coils tally and reasonaly correspond in
time between dispatch and receipt of goods, it must be
held that there is correlation and in the absence of any
allegation that non duty paid coils were received the
credit of duty cannot be denied.
3. It is brought to our notice that the
Commissioner of Central Excise had filed Central Excise
Application No.24 of 2003 against the aforesaid decision
of the Tribunal dated 31/12/02 and the same has been
dismissed on 24/8/2005. In view of our order in Central
Excise Application No.24 of 2003, no substantial
question of law arise in this appeal.
4. Appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as
to costs.
(Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
-= : 3 : =-
(J. P. DEVADHAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the CESTAT was correct in setting aside the instant case citing the decision of Tribunal in M/s. Dhimant Trading Co. while the Tribunal vide above orders remanded the case to requantify.
Whether no substantial question of law arises in this appeal in view of the order in Central Excise Application No.24 of 2003.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Dhimant Trading Co. and othersReferred¶16
M/s.Dhimant Trading Co. and others vide order No.-C-II/4433 to 4456/WZB dated 31/12/2002
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Central Excise
Valiji Tinwala
S.RADHAKRISHNAN
J.P.DEVADHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court