Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Arvind Products Ltd....Opponent(S) on 5 May, 2015
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
O/TAXAP/332/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 332 of 2015
==========================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE....Appellant(s)
Versus
ARVIND PRODUCTS LTD....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 05/05/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) We have heard learned senior standing counsel Mr. R.J. Oza assisted by learned advocate Ms. Rujuta Oza for the appellant.
This tax appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the larger bench of the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in interpreting Notification No. 14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 and consequently holding that exemption under Sr. No. 12 in terms of said notification would be admissible to the assesee, read with condition-3 and Explanation-II to the said Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/332/2015 ORDER notification, even if actual duty payment condition is not fulfilled by the assessee?
(b) Whether the conditions attached to Notification No. 14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 provide that the benefit under the said notification can be available in relation to the products, which are subjected to actual payment of duty and not otherwise?
(c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, what is the scope of Explanation II to Notification No. 14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 and whether the legal fiction created there under includes textile yarns and fabrics subject to Nil rate of duty or those which are not subjected to the payment of duty?
(d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the larger bench of the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that decision taken in the case of CCE Ludhiana Vs. Prem Industries, Simplex Mills Co. Limited Vs. CCE and Morarjee Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.
Vs. CCE were correct interpretation of exemption Notification No. 14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002, without recording findings on the distinguishing points of contentions raised by the Departmental Representative at the hearing by the larger bench of the Tribunal?
Issue notice to the respondent. Paper book to be filed within three months.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.)
Page 2 of 3
O/TAXAP/332/2015 ORDER
(R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)
(pkn)
Page 3 of 3