Skip to content

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Glasstronics India Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1998)(102)ELT63TriDel
AppellantCommissioner of Central Excise
RespondentGlasstronics India Ltd.

Excerpt

1. this case was taken up for admission in terms of second proviso to section 35f since the amount of rs. 17,387.35.2. heard shri d.k. nayyar, learned departmental representative. the respondents were not present.3. in the appeal memorandum and also orally it was submitted that the collector relied upon the judgment of the tribunal in the case of moosa haji patrawala pvt. ltd. v. commissioner of central excise, bombay-i, reported in 1996 (83) e.l.t. 620 (tribunal). it was claimed that west regional bench had referred the point of law arising out of this judgment to the jurisdictional high court. on this ground it is urged that the issue should be examined.4. the ratio of a judgment would continue to prevail until it is set aside by the higher forum. the fact that reference has been made to the jurisdictional high court on a point of law arising out of a particular order does not take away the ratio of the judgment unless and until the jurisdictional high court so holds. at this stage the reliance of the commissioner on the judgment cannot be faulted. in terms of the proviso to section 35b this appeal is not admitted for hearing.

Judgment

1. This case was taken up for admission in terms of second proviso to Section 35F since the amount of Rs. 17,387.35.

2. Heard Shri D.K. Nayyar, learned Departmental Representative. The respondents were not present.

3. In the appeal Memorandum and also orally it was submitted that the Collector relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay-I, reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal). It was claimed that West Regional Bench had referred the point of law arising out of this judgment to the jurisdictional High Court. On this ground it is urged that the issue should be examined.

4. The ratio of a judgment would continue to prevail until it is set aside by the Higher forum. The fact that reference has been made to the jurisdictional High Court on a point of law arising out of a particular order does not take away the ratio of the judgment unless and until the jurisdictional High Court so holds. At this stage the reliance of the Commissioner on the judgment cannot be faulted. In terms of the proviso to Section 35B this appeal is not admitted for hearing.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files Start your Free Trial