Commlecot,C.E. v. Imfa
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court answered an appeal on a reference by holding the Customs Exodus Appellate Tribunal justified in finding that the Department failed to establish a specific production ratio for the respondent, rejecting the use of another company's ratio as insufficient evidence.
What did the court decide?
The reference was disposed of by answering the framed question in the affirmative that the CEGAT was justified in its holding.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SJC No.71 of 1993
Collector, Customs and Central …. Petitioner Excise, Bhubaneswar
Mr. Choudhary Satyajit Mishra, Senior Standing Counsel (Central)
-versus-
M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Rayagada
…. Opposite Party
None
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA ORDER 16.12.2021
Order No.
- The present application filed by the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar arises from an order dated 12th August, 1992 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Calcutta (CEGAT) dismissing the Reference Application No.19 of 1992 thereby declining to refer the question of law as urged by the Customs Department to this Court for decision.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the ratio of 1:1.3 taken from charge chrome to charge chrome slag manufactured by the assessee was not established by the Department?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar
- respondent
M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Rayagada
Coram
A. K. Mohapatra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court