Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Karnataka Vidyuth Karkahane Ltd on 9 June, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, Ravi Malimath
:;N.:$
IN THE HUSH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG(§!,@©.i%'§EV_
DATED THIS THE 9" DAY (3%: JUNE _
PRESENT
THE HUMBLE MR. 3USTICEV..7§;'$AB't%t§i3:if?if
THE H{3N"BLE Mmus?i<:c:%'A1;R2i\;%I'_MAtL::»m*{H
CEA. Nb .;m%<§F'
BETWEEN:
The Commii;siQ.%i'e_r"cF--.CéhVE';*ai"* K
Excise V ____ " i:.«~ " "
Bangalgxe IE1..C.omti?f;iVssio~aérate '
Post BC}: 54%.!' >' I
Bangalore -01. . "APPELLANT
{By Sri_V3ee\}aVnV_'3 Ne4:~era~.!.gi;~'Qkdvocate)
g
, I
g.....--.g at
"':=r:/s".,%;<s'r%é';:g::agégxkidyuth Karkahane Lam
{KA_vI;<A_). * _
Myséc re <RQafi
.,Banga°£$§'é:é - 550 00:. WRESPQNDENT
G Samgath & Sr: 3 Raghu; Aévasateg}
..3...
V' (1) Whether the Tribunai was
aiiewmg the apeeai filed by the respe--:§:een~t,V:"h-""t
without considering the pro\{_is.ie,{}s <:'eté'taihfed"'V "
under rule 7(4) of Centre! Excise: Rt;_%Aes;§v
{2} Whether the Tritnu-e:éi'i..t»has.V.pofxet
aside the order and vva%ye..VV:§'nterest "when" the
respondent had faiieefto 5;:3a§;j_Vduty'».,eAéntthe feeds
on the dates prescr"ih'e£;i_V by the Statute andfigztfien f'z2ne§ized the provisiorjsayI'-.3S§e:ssme_ht.wfthm the permitted under me of Ceéerax tsetse Rates; 2001 ?""
This prtaierea to be posted along with CEA No.77/2O'A(}"8:_" whe're§"f't.VA' questions of {aw are ihvgtiggfied sthetxztreg./:§_VVtVVhe 'sarhe parties in respect at different substentiai questéens sf Eaw have fg-gvewered by the Diviséeh Beech ef this Ceurt .V in the apeeai CEA §\3o,1?'?;'2%Q8 diseased eff en faazeur ef the revenue; feétowtng the deeisierz f r;:é't::::e7 sttsteme eatet ée the Case :3? CQMMESSEGNER ee 49-, CENTRAL EXCISE VS. INTEFZNATIQNAL AUTO Vi-ff7{»I3., reported in 2010 (259) 5.51 3 {SC}. In View o§..§'§%V§§, 4't*fiév.. queaierz of law raised in this appeai is ansxrureré-:4' %r:j§a"v<iuT:9_ "T M of the revenue and the order passeidmhby'tbé..«Tr;%b{§'{'{aE '$3--é:et5 -- aside and the order Of the origjinai a'§Ji:_h1cr_iA.1:y