Commissioner,Central Excise,Customs And Service Tax vs. M/S.Idcol Ferro Chrome And Alloys LTD.
Held
The High Court found that the Tribunal's order remanding the matter for observance of natural justice did not raise a substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed an order by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Superintendent of Excise for a fresh order after observing principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether an order of remand by the Tribunal, directing observance of natural justice, constitutes a substantial question of law warranting an appeal to the High Court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 15.12.2022
I.A. No.10 of 2019
This application for early hearing of the appeal is disposed of as infructuous.
OTAPL No. 6 of 2017
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that all that the Tribunal has done is to remand the matter to the Superintendent of Excise for observing the principles of natural justice and passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The Court does not consider this to be giving rise to any substantial question of law which requires determination.
Accordingly, the OTAPL is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.