Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S.Elenjikal Food & Beverages (P) Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Feb 2008C.E.Appeal/7/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Central Excise Appeal against a Tribunal remand order. The court declined to decide the underlying exemption claim, instead remanding the matter back to the original authority for final adjudication as the earlier remanded case was already disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; original authority is directed to complete adjudication without delay.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S.Elenjikal Food & Beverages (P) Ltd. — Kerala HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

C.E.Appeal.No. 7 of 2005()

¶6

-------------------------NO.893/2004 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE ....................

¶7

: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶8

------------------------------------THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, C.R. BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

¶10

RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT

¶11

¶12

ELENJIKAL FOOD & BEVERAGES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., XI/118, KUNJATTUKARA, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL XAVIER SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY

¶14

THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶17

C.E.Appeal NO.7 of 2005

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2008.

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶21

This appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, is against the remand order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that while hearing an application to dispense with pre-deposit which is a condition for maintainability of the appeal, the Tribunal stayed the condition and remanded the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration. The question is whether the respondent is entitled to exemption from payment of duty based on their claim that the industry is situated in a rural area.

¶22

Learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the appellant referred to Annexures A3 to A6 which show that the State Government has notified Edathala Panchayat as a metropolitan area. However, we refrain from deciding this case, because the remand order is passed based on the request made by the department's representative himself. Moreover, the order of the Tribunal is based on an earlier order passed on 19.12.2003

¶23

CEA 7/2005 -2-

¶24

which matter would have been finally disposed of by now. Therefore, we see no difficulty for the original authority to decide this case without any delay, because the earlier case remanded on 19.12.2003 would have been already decided.

¶25

The appeal is therefore dismissed leaving freedom to the original authority to complete the adjudication based on the Tribunal's order, without any delay.

¶26

(C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶27

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/

CEA 7/2005

-3-

C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.

. No.

JUDGMENT

6^th February, 2008.

The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S.Elenjikal Food & Beverages (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S.Elenjikal Food & Beverages (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Incometax, Tvm. Vs M/S.George Educational Medical Charitabl

The Commissioner of Incometax, Kochi Vs M/S.Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills

V.R. Gopalakrishnan Vs the Incometax Officer, WARD-1, Alp.

M/S.Protech Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commiccioner of Central Excise,Kochi

Investors Club Trichur,Rep.by Its Secy. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin. Vs M/S.Kancor Flavours & Extracts Ltd.