Dismissed

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate v. M/S Nachiketa Strips & Tubes Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2010CEA/215/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revenue filed an appeal against a Tribunal order regarding excise duty calculation rules for hot-re-rolling mills. The High Court noted prior judgments covered the issue or indicated the matter was sub-judice, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without any new legal reasoning being provided by the Court.

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Vs… — Customs and Excise | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Central Excise Appeal No. 215 of 2010 -1-

¶2

********

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Central Excise Appeal No. 215 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.2.2011

¶5

Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissionerate,

Chandigarh-II

...Appellant

Versus

M/s Nachiketa Strips & Tubes Ltd.

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

¶15

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi claiming following substantial question of law:-

¶16

“i) Whether Rule 5 of the Hot-Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 would apply to a case where annual capacity of production has been redetermined in terms of Rule 4(2) on account of change in parameters even though re-determined annual capacity is less than the actual production for the financial year

¶17

Central Excise Appeal No. 215 of 2010 -2-

¶18

********

¶19

1996-97? While relying upon High Court's earlier order in CEC No.82 of 2001 in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh Versus M/s Sawan Mal Shibhu Mal Steel Rolling Mills and others wherein identical case the department has filed appeal in High Court against Tribunal order-2001(127) ELT 46 (TribunalL.B.). So, it is explicit that matter is sub-judice?”

¶20

Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that this matter is covered against the revenue by earlier judgments of this Court in GCR No.3 of 2005 (M/s Ganesh Steel Industries Vs. CCE, Chandigarh) decided on 29.3.2010 and Vikas Pipe Versus Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh-II 2003(158) E.L.T. 680 (P&H).

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶22

(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge

¶23

February 16, 2010 Pka

¶24

(Ajay Kumar Mittal)

¶25

Judge

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate v. M/S Nachiketa Strips & Tubes Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate v. M/S Nachiketa Strips & Tubes 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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs M/S Jainsons Wool Combers Ltd.

Dwarka Nath Vs Jugal Kishore Arora and Anr.

M/S Tej Bhan Cotton Ginning & Press. Fac Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chd-Ii Vs M/S Gee Emm Polyvin Pvt. Ltd.

Chander Bhan Vs State of Haryana

State of Haryana Vs Jeeta