Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Shree Ganesh Dyeing And Printing Works on 29 June, 2006

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Itc Ltd. on 22 November, 2006

5.1 We are of the considered opinion that this error is not a procedural error as found in the citations. Those errors noted in the citations were all curable. It did not pertain to a situation like in the present case. The present error is non-curable and it cannot be rectified by allowing the present Miscellaneous Application. Furthermore, the present Miscellaneous Application seeks fresh and totally new grounds which have not been authorized by the earlier Committee of Commissioners. On this point also Revenue's plea fails. We clearly notice from the judgment of CCE v. Shree Ganesh (supra) wherein the Tribunal clearly held that subsequent act cannot rectify the infirmity of the first act, as both the acts are being performed by two different authorities at different stages. Furthermore, it has held that one cannot venture to cull out the meaning of the words "not legal and proper" from the grounds of appeal, as it is completely outside the scope of Section 35B(2) of Central Excise Act. In these cited cases, the Commissioner instead of authorizing any officer, had himself filed the appeal and such infirmity has been held to be not curable and the appeal has been dismissed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sree Vishnu Electronics vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 June, 2015

"1) Whether or not the Appellate Tribunal was in error in overruling the submissions of the appellant herein that the formation of opinion by the Commissioner before filing of appeal by Revenue is mandatory under Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I, - Vs - Shree Ganesh Dyeing & Printing Works reported in 2008 (232) ELT 775 (Guj.)?
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Cce, Meerut vs M/S Daurala Sugar Works on 6 January, 2010

When the matter was taken up, we noticed that there is no authorisation by the Committee for appealing the matter before the Tribunal. Section 35(b) (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 requires that the Committee through the process of Authorisation apply its mind to draw a conclusion whether the order appealed is legal and proper before exercising right of Appeal by Revenue. It serves twin objects: (1) Filing of undesirable appeals is avoided; and (2) Filing of desirable appeals do not escape to meet scrutiny of higher appellate authority. Such decision for filing appeal is carried out through process of scrutiny by a Committee of Commissioners reflecting their mind by a speaking order of Authorisation. Elementary Rule or law requires that there should not be empty formality followed to seek remedy of appeal nor the process of law prescribed to be followed is given go bye. Accordingly appeal before Tribunal is sought through the scrutiny process of Authorisation. A preliminary decision as to legality and propriety of the order appealed is sine qua non before seeking appeal remedy following the decision of Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Vs. Shree Ganesh Dyeing & Ptng. Works reported in 2008 (232) ELT 775. Present appeal suffers from legal infirmity in absence of authorisation issued by the Committee of Commissioners with clear mandate to seek Appeal drawing conclusion that the order appealed was neither legal nor proper on the given circumstance of the case exhibiting application of mind of the Committee.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cce, Indore vs M/S Marvel Vinyl Ltd on 22 December, 2009

4. This is not the only occasion where so many legal infirmities have come to notice of Tribunal as to filing of Appeal by Revenue casually and without proper authorisation on record. Laxity in proper presentation of the Appeal has made Revenues Appeal fatal in many cases and even on 29.4.09 when an order was passed by the Tribunal in a batch of Appeals filed by Revenue in Appeal Case No. C-131 to 135 of 2006, it was observation of the Tribunal that the pre-requisite of law was not followed for seeking Appeal stating the reason why decision appealed is neither legal nor proper, following the rule of law laid down by Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Vs. Shree Ganesh Dying & Printing Works reported in 2008 (89) RLT 549.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cce, Kanpur vs M/S Ganesh Polytex Ltd on 17 February, 2010

7. Following aforesaid ratio laid down by the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court and also the ratio laid down by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE & C Vs. Shree Ganesh Dying & Printing Works reported in 2008 (89) RLT 549 and CCE & C Vs. Siddharth Petro Products Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2008 (89) RLT 554. Revenues appeal suffers from legal infirmity and is not maintainable. Thus dismissed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S. Western Metal Industries on 11 July, 2014

In those the said facts relying on the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Shree Ganesh Dyeing and Printing Works reported in 2008 (232) ELT775 (Guj.) it was held that, it is not mere formality but the Review Committee has to arrive at the decision whether the impugned order is legal or proper or not and whether appeal is to be filed or not. Admittedly, in this case on perusal of the note sheet, I find that there is no opinion made out by the Learned Commissioners why the order in original is not the legal and proper and why appeal is required to be filed. The signatures have been obtained merely by circulation of the file without appreciating the facts of the case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1