Disposed

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S S.R.J.Peety Steels Jalna Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2014WP/2150/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Commissioner challenged the President of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to assign a referred matter to a specific judicial member. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits, leaving the decision to the Tribunal President, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; the matter is left to the Tribunal President for appropriate orders.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S S.R.J.Peety… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp215014.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2014

¶5

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Aurangabad Commissionerate, N-5, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431 003.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s S.R.J. Peety Steels Jalna Pvt.Ltd., D-51, Additional MIDC, Jalna.

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Mrs.Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.M.Godsay, advocate for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶12

A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE :10th April, 2014

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1 The petitioner is seeking directions to the President, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, for assigning the matter, which has been referred for decision of the third Member of the Appellate Tribunal, to any of the Members except Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial).

¶15

2 It is the contention of the petitioner that in the instant

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp215014.odt

¶18

matter, there was difference of opinion between the two members i.e. Mr.P.R.Chandrashekharan, Member (Technical) and Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and points of difference were framed and matter was required to be referred by the President to the third Member of the Appellate Tribunal - Shri S.S.Kang. At the stage of final disposal of the matter, the Division Bench of learned Members Shri P.K.Jain and Shri S.S.Kang was constituted. However, there was difference of opinion amongst them and points of difference were framed by the learned Members. The matter was again placed before the learned President for referring the matter to third Member. The learned President has accordingly referred the matter to learned Member Shri Ashok Jindal.

¶19

3 The Commissioner of Central Excise has presented instant petition questioning decision of the President to refer the matter to learned Member Shri Ashok Jindal. According to the petitioner, points of difference were framed during earlier round of hearing by learned Members Shri P.R.Chandrashekharan and Shri Ashok Jindal and to certain extent identical points of differences are framed during the subsequent round.

¶20

4 On perusal of the points of difference framed at an earlier stage of proceedings as well as points of difference framed for consideration at subsequent stage, we find that there are identical issues. It is also urged by learned Counsel for the

¶21

{3}

¶22

wp215014.odt

¶23

petitioner that this is a administrative function of the President to assign the matter to the third Member, as provided under Section 35D of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

¶24

5 This Court cannot cause interference in the matter in exercise of extraordinary powers. In the facts of the case, we refrain from expressing our opinion. However, we leave the matter to the learned President, Appellate Tribunal, for passing appropriate orders. It would be open for the President to reconsider the issue for making reference of the matter to himself or to the another learned Member for hearing and deciding the same. The learned President may take appropriate decision in the facts of the case.

¶25

6 With the observations as above, writ petition stands

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

A.M. BADAR R.M.BORDE

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

adb/wp215014

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S S.R.J.Peety Steels Jalna Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S S.R.J.Peety Steels Jalna Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Another

Pramod Prabhakar Madne Vs the Union of India and Another

Utkarsh Co-Op Housing Soc. Ltd. Vs Dr. Harshdeep Kambale and Another

Paldewar Prashant Agrotech Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aurangabad Electrical Contractors Association and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanket Sanjay Bhargodeo Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad and Others