Quashed

M/S. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Central Excise

Bombay HC18 Sept 2012CEXA/138/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these four common appeals, the High Court held that the CESTAT was not justified in insisting on a pre-deposit. Following the precedent set in Automotive Stampings and Assemblies Ltd., the Court quashed the CESTAT order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeals on merits without any pre-deposit.

What did the court decide?

The CESTAT common order dated 15th November, 2011 was quashed; Commissioner (Appeals) directed to hear appeals on merits without pre-deposit.

M/S. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., Vs the… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2012)

hvn

cexa69-71-80-83.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2012 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2012 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 80 OF 2012 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 83 OF 2012

¶7

M/s. Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Commissioner of Central Excise ... Respondent

¶11

Mr. V. Shridharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Uchit Sheth and Mr. Prakash Shah i/by M/s. PDS Legal for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the respondent.

¶13

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &

¶14

R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Whether the CESTAT by its common order dated 15^th November, 2011 was

¶17

justified in directing the appellant to make pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal against four orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) all dated 29^th June, 2010 is the question raised in these four appeals.

¶18

These appeals are admitted on the above question and taken up for hearing by consent of parties.

¶19

The issue involved in all these appeals is whether the value of scrap retained

hvn

cexa69-71-80-83.12

by the appellant assessee/job worker is liable to be included in computing the assessable value of the job work done by the assessee. The adjudicating authority has held that the value of scrap is includable in the assessable value. On appeal, the Commissioner (A) directed the assessee to make pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order insisted on predeposit. Challenging the said order, the present appeals are filed. This Court in the case of Automotive Stampings and Assemblies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise in Central Excise Appeal (L) No. 44 of 2011 decided on 22^nd June, 2011 on consideration of similar issue has directed that the appeals be heard on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order, we quash and set aside the common order of CESTAT dated 15^th November, 2011 and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeals on merits and in accordance with Law without insisting any pre deposit.

¶24

The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶25

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

M/S. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurudas Harishchandra Nagarkar Vs the High Power Committee and 5 Ors.

Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital and Regional Cancer Centre, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Nasik Vs M/S Ravi Enterprises and Anr.

M/S. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise

M/S. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise