Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Excise Pune III v. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd

Bombay HC17 Sept 2018CEXA/237/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in Central Excise Appeal No. 237 of 2017, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Court held that the substantial questions framed by the appellant did not arise from the impugned Tribunal order and were undecided by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed.

Commissioner of Central Excise Pune III Vs Piaggio… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

13-CEXA-237-2017.DOC

¶2

jsn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2017

¶5

Commissioner of Central Excise Pune III … Appellant Versus Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent

¶6

Mr. P.S. Cardozo, for the Appellant. Mr. Sachin Chitnis, for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATED: 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2018

¶8

PC:-

¶9

This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 10th October, 2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).

¶10

The Appellant has urged the following substantial questions

¶11

of law for our consideration :-

¶12

(I) “Whether in the absence of any ruling on the credit availed on the inputs used in the clearance of goods such consequential relief in respect of the duty paid under protest can be given?”

¶13

(ii) “ Whether the amount already availed as credit in respect of the impugned goods can be adjusted while giving consequential relief, especially when specific order to that effect has not been pronounced by the CESTAT”?

¶14

The above question as proposed were not a subject matter

¶15

of consideration by the Tribunal leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 10th October, 2013. The counsel for the

¶16

1/2

¶17

13-CEXA-237-2017.DOC

¶18

Revenue was not able to point out how these questions arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent's Appeal by holding that the accessories, such as tool kits, jack assembly of vehicles are not includable in the assessable value of the motor vehicle. This view was taken by the Tribunal following the decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune¹ and the Supreme Court decision on the same issue dismissing the Revenue's Appeal from the Order of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune²

¶19

We find that the Appeal memo has been signed by the Commissioner. We would expect due application of mind on the part of the Revenue before raising questions indicating the grievance to the impugned order of the Tribunal. Henceforth we would expect the Revenue to take appropriate care while filing Appeals to this Court.

¶20

In the above view, the Appeal is dismissed.

¶21

( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. ) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶22

1 2002 (148) ELT 1147 (T).

¶23

2 2003 (153) ELT A71 (SC).

¶24

2/2

Commissioner of Central Excise Pune III v. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise Pune III v. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise,Mumbai Central Commissionerate Vs Orbit Corporation Ltd.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise) Mumbai East Commissionerate Vs Cnh Industrial (India) Pvt.Ltd.(Erstwhile New Holland Fiat (India)Ltd.)

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise, Raigad Commissionerate Vs Dorf Ketal Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai-I Commissionerate Vs M/S. Vasudha Agencies

The Commissioner of Service Tax-I Mumbai Vs Amp Capital Advisors (I) Pvt.Ltd

The Commissioner of Service Tax-I Mumbai Vs Amp Capital Advisors (I) Pvt. Ltd.