Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Bhoruka Goldhofer Trailers (Pvt) ... on 28 February, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Bhoruka Goldhofer Trailers (Pvt) ... on 28 February, 2011

Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath

IN THE HIGH COURT GP KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THEE THE 28"' mm' 0;: FEBRUARY 2023,

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.xuM;:H¥;  

AND  

THE HOFWBLE MR.3usT:Cté'<RASQ_:" 'MAé.i1r+§ 1'Aﬂ~:A.  

<:EA.No.59x::»_F 12008  
CE&§£*50~5JW£-BF" 200,8.
cEA._Nf0_58__oF 2008'; 1- 
  j  * 
 H r:iE;*xA.:\so".'eo 'ox? '2'0<;~8=

SETWEEN:

Commis:-signer of ::T'ie:wtrai",'-- 

Excise, _  "  ._

Barsgaioreaigtbmmissibngrate,

8a;éeg'a«E,Qre ..«;+_';*36,:,.1,_c;a:1..  --------  APPELLANT
  A. _  CCHVEMON

Z:-, {ﬁyr S143-'ff, E«§'.%:e1_§%r.é':-_,.,iMzxagzécate)

Hm

 if-?:%_,}"%.éfE'5'»*Ef:'{S';:t:§<ua Gﬁiéhafer
  ?;:_'~"a§§._e?«;<.;" 19%. :_m%.,
 %§*%;%:e§Ee"E._é "i»§g;%a:*;:f2

  Ev?ah_;a'c§ev;3rp:2{a {HQ} E



Bangalere W S612} 048. ...RESPOf\EDENT
COMMON

(By Sri S.N.M:;ri:hy, Advtécate)

ﬁéwéiiir

This cemaoteg/2008 ﬁéed tmtset set§t'i'¢n~t(ei:t5Mt3 trze"

Centrai Excise Act; 19¢»: prayingﬁto »_d;Ae'c:itf"e t':he'--si}--1'.>star1t_iea'E
question of iaw stated thereih,"gse't_ aside-_the C&?STA'T,.

South Zone Bench, Bangaiom in fine? order.£\f.o,i?<i?3j';2Q07'*~L'

dated 0741.200? arised i:":Vz'1.--g;§eei N<5'.E/§1u7/*-}t9"E26';" 

This cEA.No.57/.2008 f;.£edft:nder Settitm 35c; of the
CentraE Exciee Act}, 1'9_4'4. pr..3yEngt"€§:,d?<--~:{;ide the sttbstantiaé
question of iaw stateéd tthesetnég §etf.as-ade the CESTAT,
South Zone Bench, Baijg'a5.Qre'_irf fEe'i'ai"c{rVd.e-r Ne.14?1/2007
dated O7.11.2{}_O'?__ari$ed 'en-§.p_;:e;a§.V_Ns.E,/552/1995.

ms, tit§t';58,'2f_Qt33._f;:..edf.tm;:.e'}V Section 356 of the
Centreii  pre;}_'i'hg"Vto decide the substantial
quest}Qh._eff'E;¢§w~.._VStajtetd"therein, Set aside the CESTAT,
South 'Zone 5enCh:_;.VE5at}§;~a£0-re in finai order No.1472/2987
dated O?-,3I:1;2Gl;1'? a.riseci~~../En Appeal No.E/916/1996.

 "i'his CE';t,t'r;:'o'.ee;2o0e ﬂied under eectaen 35:; of the

"  Cet§1"i*rz:*.;!.t.AE:,<.cEse ACt;w1'944 praying to decide the substantiai
, qtgeetien .Qi"~._§3W stateﬁ therein, set aside the CESTAT,
_ *f*3e1;:°:.h"--Zer17eE* .;_ee--nch, Bangaiore in fihei order' No,:«:t74/2097
" ._tii'2::§_t;:;"2d"{}7?'_;v.1_:',.2'OD? atised in Appeai NGEE/918,/1996.

*:_'h'e':":é CEM earning er: for aﬁmiesieh thée Say,

 E's3.KUMx'it:R 3., deiiveted i:hef0Eiewit1g:~

f§E...§§}§F~'EE?'a§"§""



7-'~. '-»£ieterr:e§ve.=e:éee :3? {ate ef sea: asses la ease: Seeiéera 3i*;~ia

A  [x"a_:2~:'§ Eu.-7_:§»£s a? she éeeteeé Excise ea: E: is €Zi§€§f' fmm Seciéee

Sri Semasheiéar, the learned ceunsel is disabled to

take notice fer respondents in these aepealsk  l' H' 'V

2.. These 4 appeaés are challenging the order passed by 4t:<zAef"'Ti"rlbL;'f,.;a.E.':s;£ri'iic%*i';

held that the benefit of E3).('V€3F:lfT7.V'§3'l,l'{}l1 'i':"~:.V_ flliatlillcation 1775/as dated 13*' Ma.l~§;:a._19ee;_'V'§§él;;§%::+l.be gleam to the assessee for the periods lira the appeals were ailowed§.a'ne_:§he was granted to the assesseea':.""»_:." ;' 'V A V' V l .'_The: in these appeals is:

V'l"".!\!ifi'etl1e:~ ':lae"°xTribunal was justified in WV_';lphol'di'ngv_§__the claim of exemption of the ieassessee?"

:%e{lj'..§la;e question fails ezétiéln greases sf _ é ...

35~»G, that the High Court has no jurisdiction to go into the said qu€3S;tEOi"s. It is; only the Apex Court which h_a1__$ the jurisdiction. Ir: that View of the matter the aepeaie'--efr--e:'i*2.et maintairiabie. The appeiiaet has to aoororﬁﬂn Court under Section 354. of the.<A*ct.for.'_4oVei§'erh5o'ioéiti_on 'or the issue raisee in these appeaisl'.

4. The teamed .»<:o;__;nsei"A.V_3ppeaeu:»hi'rrigA.:_for_:; t"r.e '*. appeiiant submitted that is noi£"~tije_onEyr'quVesi:io:§; ihvoived. The Tribune? has not igorzsid-ere-doi'o'th'eir"«.:aspects. The other aspects also haye to be..oonsi'oiVerec£"'b,\}V"e.hVe'V"Apex Court arid the o.rou__ndeiofweg;;>e'a»i»_T"e.a_r;--not be so bifurcated and this Court {:«a'r.1hoii: eXere'ié;Qe..f§'aritie'33y its jurisdiction. .5. 'I*F1 Vt§*3_8..E v'i,ev¢°of the matter, we reject these a;;§i;4j;'ee:iA:% re$er'xrira'g "" "'i'%bert\; to the appeiiarat to prefer ~.4a7i'§:'§ef;-ii ueéer ﬁeeéioré 3E--L of the Act eefore the '%=:<.:;:":*%;'eie.§i;1'1g_:;*iV<er':*:e zilourit of Eriﬁie if they so ehoee. Sri Semashekar, the iearned caunsel who was directed to take notice for respondent in these agpeals ts also granted four weeks time to fiie the vakaiath, Rsk/W

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Bhoruka Goldhofer Trailers (Pvt) ... on 28 February, 2011

Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath