Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd on 9 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. 13 of 2008
Excise Cross No. 192 of 2008
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 112/CE/BPL/2007-2008 dated 23.10.2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal (MP) ]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants
Bhopal
Vs.
M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Govind Dixit, DR for the Appellants Shri Z U Alvi, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/ Decision: 09.05.2016 FINAL ORDER NO . 51781 /2016 Per Archana Wadhwa:
The present appeal stand filed by the revenue against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.10.2007. As per the law relevant during the period, Revenue was required to seek permission from the Committee on Dispute for pursuing the appeal before Tribunal. It is seen that such request made by the Revenue was considered by the Committee on Dispute and vide minutes of meeting circulated on 15.10.2008, such permission was rejected.
2. Learned advocate brings to our notice the Honble High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. dated 13.02.2012 vide which it stand held that wherever such permission was declined prior to Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Electronics Corpn of India [20211 332 ITR 58 (SC)] , same could not be revived subsequently. Said decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai [2015 (317) ELT 708 (Tri-Mum)] and CC Mangalore vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. [ 2013 (292) ELT 427 (Tri-Bang)].
3. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as not maintainable. Cross objection filed by the respondent also gets disposed of.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( B Ravichandran)
Member(Technical)
ss
2