Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Excise v. Thandava Sugars Cooperative Ltd.

Telangana HC26 Feb 2014CERC/16/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the Reference Case under Section 35(H)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, holding that the questions framed did not constitute valid questions of law requiring adjudication. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

C.E.R.C. dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood disposed of as infructuous.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH &

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

C.E.R.C. No. 16 of 2002

¶4

JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)

¶5

This is an application filed under Section 35(H)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking a direction to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Bangalore to refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of the Final Order No.1009/2002 dated 02.08.2002 of the Appellate Tribunal:

¶6

a) It is prayed before the Hon’ble High Court that the part payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs is to be treated as a payment of arrears of duty but not as a pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The CEGAT has wrongly opined that Rs.10.00 lakhs was posterior to the clearance of goods and there could not be any collection of the same from the buyers. In fact, the assessee have collected the amount at a higher rate of duty from the customers without extending the said benefit of Notification to the customers. The amount so collected in excess from the buyers was not paid to the department.

¶7

b) Why the amount claimed as refund by M/s.Thandava Sugars Ltd. should not be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund under Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 inasmuch as the incidence of duty of Excise was already passed on to the buyers by M/s.Thandava Sugars Cooperative Ltd. As per Subsection (3) of Section 11B, the mandatory provision of law as contained in sub-section (2) has precedence over any judgment, decree, order of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court other than the provisions of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 or rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force.”

¶8

When the matter is taken up for hearing there is no

¶9

representation on behalf of either side.

¶10

A perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that there are no questions of law as raised above seeking reference which are required to be adjudicated under the provisions of Section 35(H) of the Central Excise Act.

¶11

In that view of the matter, C.E.R.C. is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Reference Case, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶13

_________________

¶14

G. CHANDRAIAH, J 26.02.2014 ______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J bcj

Commissioner of Central Excise v. Thandava Sugars Cooperative Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise v. Thandava Sugars Cooperative Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax Ap Hyd Vs Dr Evita Fernandez

Ivrcl - Kbl (Jv) Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

M/S Ap State Financial Corporation Hyd Vs Commissoiner of Income Tax Ap Hyd

Commissioner of Centrla Excise, Vs M/S Tibrevala Electronics

The Commissioner ofCentralExcise Vs M/s .Mahavir Ispat

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs M/s.Deepak Graphics Ltd.