Central Excise,Customs and Service Tax v. M/S.a.K.Das Associates Ltd.
Orissa HCOTAPL/7/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2015 and 6 of 2015 Page 1 of 3 IN THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 ORISSA AT CUTTACK OTAPL No. 7 of 2015 and OTAPL No. 6 of 2015
OTAPL No.7 of 2015
Central Excise, Customs and Service
….
Appellant
Tax, Bhubaneswar-1, represented
through its Commissioner
-versus-
M/s. A.K. Das Associates Ltd., H/1, …. Respondent
Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar
AND
OTAPL No.6 of 2015
Central Excise, Customs and Service
….
Appellant
Tax, Bhubaneswar-1, represented
through its Commissioner
-versus-
M/s. A.K. Das Associates Ltd., H/1, …. Respondent
Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar
Advocates, appeared in these cases:
For Appellant(s) : Choudhury Satyajit Mishra
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Pami Rath, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
07.12.2022
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
320. It is contended by Mrs. Pami, Rath, learned counsel for the
OTAPL Nos.7 of 2015 and 6 of 2015
Page 1 of 3
Respondent Assessee that inasmuch as the dispute emanating from the impugned order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) concerns the rate of duty, the recourse for the Appellant Department is to file an appeal directly in the Supreme Court of India under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act).
OTAPL Nos.7 of 2015 and 6 of 2015
Page 2 of 3
they are covered by exemption notification relates directly and proximately to the rate applicable thereto for the purposes of assessment.”
(S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge
S.K.Jena/Secy.
OTAPL Nos.7 of 2015 and 6 of 2015
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed by the revenue against a CESTAT order varying the rate of service tax under Section 11-C of the Central Excise Act is maintainable or if recourse lies directly with the Supreme
The applicability of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act regarding disputes on the rate of duty.
Whether exemption notifications covering specific periods affect the maintainability of an appeal under Section 35L(1)(b).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of CustomsReferred¶5
(1993) 4 SCC 320 · Who else cites this
APM Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Navi MumbaiReferred¶5
MANU/MH/3535/2018
Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation LtdReferred¶5
MANU/MH/4297/2021
Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi v. Bharati Airtel LimitedReferred¶5
MANU/DE/0591/2013
Commissioner of S.T., Bangalore v. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Ltd.Referred¶5
2011 (23) S.T.R. 321 (Kar.)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Tax, Bhubaneswar-1
M/s. A.K. Das Associates Ltd.
S. Muralidhar
M.S. Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. Muralidhar and M.S. Raman
Parties & counsel