Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs M/S on 25 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs M/S on 25 March, 2010
Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

OJCA/97/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 97 of 2010
 

In


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 306 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================


 

COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD - III - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

M/S
FINE CARE BIO SYSTEMS - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
YN RAVANI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 25/03/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)

This
application has been preferred by the applicant original
appellant of Tax Appeal No.306 of 2010 seeking stay against
execution, implementation and operation of order dated 14.7.2009
bearing No.A/1516-1521/WZB/ AHD/09 made by the Customs, Excise &
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, at Ahmedabad.

Mr.Y.N.Ravani,
learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that the order of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s
ABB Ltd. and others, 2009 (92) RTL 665, has been stayed by the
Karnataka High Court in Tax Appeal preferred by the Revenue.

Merely
because the Tax Appeal stands admitted does not mean that the order
made by the Tribunal should not be executed, implemented or
permitted to operate. It may be that the order which had been
impugned before the Karnataka High Court has been stayed and that
the impugned order of the Tribunal may be cited as a precedent in
some other case, however, that by itself would be no ground for
staying the impugned order of the Tribunal.

Civil
Application is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged.

[D.A.MEHTA,
J.]

[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]

parmar*

   

Top