Disposed

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Chandigarh v. M/S Confederation of Indian Industries

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2015STA/3/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three appeals under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act challenging the jurisdiction of CESTAT to grant stays beyond statutory limits. The Court held the appeals identical and directed the Tribunal to dispose of them expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directing CESTAT to dispose of appeals expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Chandigarh… — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

1. STA No.3 of 2015 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 20.07.2015

¶3

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh

¶4

…..Appellant

¶5

versus

¶6

M/s Confederation of Indian Inds

¶7

 .....Respondents

¶8

2. STA No.4 of 2015 (O&M)

¶9

Commissioner Central Excise, Chandigarh-I

¶10

…..Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

M/s Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation

¶13

 .....Respondents

¶14

3. STA No.5of2015(O&M)

¶15

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh

¶16

…..Appellant

¶17

versus

¶18

M/s Confederation of Indian Industries

¶19

 .....Respondents

¶20

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶21

Present: Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Nageswar Rao and Ms. Sayaree Basu Mallik,
Advocates for the respondents in STA Nos.3 and 5 of
2015;
Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the respondent in
STA No.4 of 2015

¶22

S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶23

These are appeals under Section 35(G) of the Central

¶24

Excise Act, 1944, against the order of the Custom Excise & Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

¶25

PARKASH CHAND 2015.07.21 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

STA-3-2015, etc.

¶27

- 2 -

¶28

2. The appeals are identical in all material respects and
are, therefore, disposed of by this common order and judgment.

¶29

3. The question is whether the CESTAT had the power to
grant a stay beyond the period prescribed under Section 35C(2A),
proviso (3), of the aforesaid Act.

¶30

4. Similar appeals, including CEA No.75 of 2014, titled as
Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Panchkula vs. M/s
Jyoti Sales Corporation, Tarori, were disposed of by an order and
judgment dated 22.09.2014.

¶31

5. The above appeals are, therefore, disposed of by
directing the CESTAT to make sincere efforts for the expeditious
disposal of the appeals, preferably within six months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶32

20.07.2015 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
parkash*JUDGE

¶33

PARKASH CHAND 2015.07.21 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Chandigarh v. M/S Confederation of Indian Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Chandigarh v. M/S Confederation of Indian Industries

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

M/S Ind Swift Ltd. Th Himanshu Jain Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate, Gurgaon Vs M/S Bellsonica Auto Components India, Gurgaon

M/S the Jai Hind Coop Land C Society Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Chd Vs M/S Confederation of Indian Industries Chd

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Vs M/S Pb. Ex-Serviceman Corp.

M/S Chahal Bus Service Regd Kapurthala Vs Secretary Regional Transport Authority Jalandhar and Anr.