Tata Ssl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Tata Ssl Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 29, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39854

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/39854
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, A M Moheb
Decided On: Jul 29, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tata Ssl Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(189)ELT256Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this appeal arises out of the order of the commissioner of central excise (appeals). in the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) rejected the appeal before him on the ground that the order appealed against is not an appealable order. the lower original authority has communicated to the appellants that they need to take two separate registrations for two separate premises and has rejected their request for a single registration. against this communication, the appellants went in appeal before the commissioner (appeals).3. we observe that the commissioner (appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal before him on the ground that the lower authority's communication was not an appealable order. under the central excise act, any person who is aggrieved by any order or decision can appeal against such an order or decision. we find that the communication under reference is an appealable order. the commissioner (appeals) should have decided the appeal on merits. we remand the matter to him with the directions that he shall pass an order on merits after giving an opportunity to the appellants of being heard.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal before him on the ground that the order appealed against is not an appealable order. The lower original authority has communicated to the appellants that they need to take two separate registrations for two separate premises and has rejected their request for a single registration. Against this communication, the appellants went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. We observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal before him on the ground that the lower authority's communication was not an appealable order. Under the Central Excise Act, any person who is aggrieved by any order or decision can appeal against such an order or decision. We find that the communication under reference is an appealable order. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the appeal on merits. We remand the matter to him with the directions that he shall pass an order on merits after giving an opportunity to the appellants of being heard.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Tata Ssl Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, A M Moheb