P. Ganesh, Commercial Director v. CCE

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 65 2018 (365) E.L.T. 301 P. Ganesh, Commercial Director v. CCE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 --Order of Appellate Tribunal --Restoration of appealAppeal was dismissed for non-appearance----Where it was not clear as to whether notice was served in the office of Official Liquidator nor there was any proof of service produced, therefore in any event, the order being an order without jurisdiction deserved to be set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration with a direction to restore the appeal filed by assessee--The question arose before this court as to whether the order of Tribunal was bad in law for departing from the following principles enunciated by Supreme Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The issue must be decided strictly in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court, it being the last word on the subject and if, there was no decision of the Supreme Court on the issue, then the effort must be made to decide the issue by following any decision of the High Court of our country, if holding the field. Held: In the decision of Viral Laminates (P) Ltd. 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335 (Guj-HC) : 1998 TaxPub(EX) 107 (Guj-HC), the challenge was to rule 20 of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1982, which enables the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default of appearance, as being ultra vires the provisions of section 35C(1) and section 129B(1). It was not clear as to whether notice was served in the office of Official Liquidator nor there was any proof of service produced. In any event, the order being an order without jurisdiction deserved to be set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration with a direction to restore the appeal filed by assessee. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 65 2018 (365) E.L.T. 301

P. Ganesh, Commercial Director v. CCE

CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944

--Order of Appellate Tribunal --Restoration of appealAppeal was dismissed for non-appearance----Where it was not clear as to whether notice was served in the office of Official Liquidator nor there was any proof of service produced, therefore in any event, the order being an order without jurisdiction deserved to be set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration with a direction to restore the appeal filed by assessee--The question arose before this court as to whether the order of Tribunal was bad in law for departing from the following principles enunciated by Supreme Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The issue must be decided strictly in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court, it being the last word on the subject and if, there was no decision of the Supreme Court on the issue, then the effort must be made to decide the issue by following any decision of the High Court of our country, if holding the field. Held: In the decision of Viral Laminates (P) Ltd. 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335 (Guj-HC) : 1998 TaxPub(EX) 107 (Guj-HC), the challenge was to rule 20 of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1982, which enables the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default of appearance, as being ultra vires the provisions of section 35C(1) and section 129B(1). It was not clear as to whether notice was served in the office of Official Liquidator nor there was any proof of service produced. In any event, the order being an order without jurisdiction deserved to be set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration with a direction to restore the appeal filed by assessee.