Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 18, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17901

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/17901
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Mar 18, 2000
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(69)ECC690

Excerpt

.....order no. m/2/ 99-nb dated 7.1.1999 with the prayer that following question of law be referred to the hon'ble high court: whether the pre-deposit amount of rs. 6.5 lakhs debited in rg-23c part-ii can be considered as compliance of tribunal's stay order under section 35f or whether the entire pre-deposit should have been deposited either through rt-6 or debit in pla account.2. learned counsel appearing on behalf of m/s. garlon polyfab industries ltd. raised a preliminary objection that the reference application is not maintainable. he submits that as per section 35g, the reference application lies against an order passed by the tribunal under section 35c of the central excise act and the present impugned order is not passed under section 35c of the central excise act. he submits that the impugned misc. order vide which the tribunal accepted the compliance made by the appellant to the stay order and vacated the order of detention issued under rule 230 of central excise rules by the supdt. of central excise.4. the present reference application is filed against the misc. order dated 7.1.1999 which is not an order passed under section 35c of the central excise act. the appeal is still pending for decision before the tribunal. section 35g - statement of case to high court-(1) the [commissioner of central excise] or the other party may within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under section 35c (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, require the appellate tribunal to refer to the high court any question of law arising out of such order and, subject to the other provisions contained in this section, the appellate tribunal shall, within one hundred and.....

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this Reference application against the Misc. Order No. M/2/ 99-NB dated 7.1.1999 with the prayer that following question of law be referred to the Hon'ble High Court: Whether the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 6.5 lakhs debited in RG-23C Part-II can be considered as compliance of Tribunal's Stay Order under Section 35F or whether the entire pre-deposit should have been deposited either through RT-6 or debit in PLA account.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. raised a preliminary objection that the Reference application is not maintainable. He submits that as per Section 35G, the reference application lies against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act and the present impugned order is not passed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. He submits that the impugned Misc. Order vide which the Tribunal accepted the compliance made by the appellant to the Stay order and vacated the order of detention issued under Rule 230 of Central Excise Rules by the Supdt. of Central Excise.

4. The present Reference application is filed against the Misc. Order dated 7.1.1999 which is not an order passed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. The appeal is still pending for decision before the Tribunal.

Section 35G - Statement of case to High Court-(1) The [Commissioner of Central Excise] or the other party may within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under Section 35C (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order and, subject to the other provisions contained in this section, the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the period hereinbefore specified, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days.

6. Admittedly, the order in which the Revenue raised a question of law for referring to the Hon'ble High Court is not passed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, therefore, the present application is rejected as not maintainable.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.