Merely because Registry admitted appeal it does not mean that appeal is maintainable before Tribunal

Last updated: 26 June 2007

Save Share

Court :
Tribunal

Brief :
MUMBAI, JUNE 25, 2007 : SINCE the appellant failed to produce proof of export within the statutory period of 6 months in respect of excisable goods cleared from their factory demand notices were issued for recovery of Central Excise duty. The Dy.Commissioner dropped the proceedings except in case of one AR- 4 in respect of which the duty demand of Rs.1.07 lakhs was confirmed. Revenue went in appeal before Commissioner(A) who dismissed the same. Being aggrieved, a revision application was preferred by the Revenue & the revisionary authority remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to decide the matter afresh. This time around the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the total demand of Rs.8.86 lakhs and imposed equal amount of penalty. An appeal was filed by the company before the Commissioner(A) but the same turned out to be an un-successful one. Therefore, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Registry admitted the same.

Citation :
Merely because Registry admitted appeal it does not mean that appeal is maintainable before Tribunal - Matter involving export of goods outside India hit by clause (C) of first proviso to Sec 35B : Tribunal

MUMBAI, JUNE 25, 2007 : SINCE the appellant failed to produce proof of export within the statutory period of 6 months in respect of excisable goods cleared from their factory demand notices were issued for recovery of Central Excise duty. The Dy.Commissioner dropped the proceedings except in case of one AR-4 in respect of which the duty demand of Rs.1.07 lakhs was confirmed. Revenue went in appeal before Commissioner(A) who dismissed the same. Being aggrieved, a revision application was referred by the Revenue & the revisionary authority remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to decide the matter afresh. This time around the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the total demand of Rs.8.86 lakhs and imposed equal amount of penalty. An appeal was filed by the company before the Commissioner(A) but the same turned out to be an un-successful one. Therefore, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Registry admitted the same. When the Stay application came up for hearing, the Ld. DR raised a preliminary objection that the said matter cannot be taken up by the Tribunal as it does not have any jurisdiction to decide an appeal relating to "goods exported outside India (except to Nepal or Bhutan) without payment of duty ". This is as per clause (c) to the first proviso to Section 35B(1) of the CEA'44.