The High Court held that an appeal regarding the quantification of evaded Central Excise Duty does not fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35G. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
"this appeal is dismissed"
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937
C.E.Appeal.No. 14 of 2007 ( )
-------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO. 1335-1342/2000 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE DATED 01-06-2005
APPELLANT/APPELLANT:
EXCEL THREAD INDUSTRY, COCHIN.
BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION) (ADJUDICATION), CHENNAI.
2. THE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH,, BANGALORE.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCISE R1 TO 2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS.
THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
C.E.Appeal.No. 14 of 2007 ( )
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.8.1999 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.
ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED NIL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED NIL, SCN NO.52/99 DATED 16.8.1999 TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE E: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2000 C.NO.INV/DGAE/CHE/15/99 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE F: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.847-854/2005 DATED 1.6.2005 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
C.E.A.No.14 of 2007
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
2
CEA.No.14/07
for support, Rajan Beedi Company v. Commissioner of
Central Excise [2015 (2) KLT 965]. Under such
circumstances, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
CEA.No.14/07 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quantification of Central Excise Duty evaded falls within the purview of appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajan Beedi Company v. Commissioner of Central ExciseReferred¶40
Rajan Beedi Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (2) KLT 965]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Excel Thread Industry, Cochin
Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Chennai
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
