The High Court dismissed the Central Excise appeals filed by the Revenue. The court held that since the Revenue had conceded the disputed proposition before the Tribunal, the appeals are devoid of merit and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
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.
24-25-CEXA-152-154-2018.DOC
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2018 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2018
The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Thane Rural V/s.
NRC Ltd.
… Appellant
… Respondent
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, with Mr. Nikhil Wadikar, for the Appellant.
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE: 30TH OCTOBER, 2018.
PC:-
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal justified in holding that
1/3
24-25-CEXA-152-154-2018.DOC
the principle of unjust unreachment is not applicable to the grant of refund”?
“The facts and circumstances of the case does not exhibit whether the order entitling refund to the respondent is either stayed or reversed by any higher Court in appeal by Revenue. Once the matter is concluded and the appeal has reached to finality, it is no more possible to re-open that order in any consequential proceedings. Accordingly, Revenue's appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Both sides agree to the above proposition of law and facts.”
part of the Revenue's counsel, no substantial question of law would arise for our consideration. This is so on account of the fact
2/3
24-25-CEXA-152-154-2018.DOC
that once a concession made the dispute ceases to be a debatable issue. In fact this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works P. Ltd .1 had occasion to hold that when concession has been made before Tribunal by the department representative then no question of law would arise for consideration. Therefore without considering the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order dated 11 April, 2017, we are of the view that the question as proposed in these facts do not give rise to the substantial question of law as no debatable question arise for consideration before us.
1(2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom.)
3/3
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works P. Ltd.Referred¶24
(2009) 318 ITR 116
The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Thane Rural
NRC Ltd.
M.S. Sanklecha
Riyaz I. Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court