Gujarat High Court High Court

Milton vs Assistant on 5 August, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Milton vs Assistant on 5 August, 2008
Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

OJCA/38420/2007	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 384 of 2007
 

In


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 331 of 2006
 

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


 

MILTON
LAMINATES LTD. - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - Respondent(s)
 

============================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
DV PARIKH for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR YN RAVANI
for Respondent(s) : 1, 
============================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM :
			
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/08/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

1. Rule.

Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Additional Standing Counsel is directed to
waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the
learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the
matter is taken up for hearing and disposal.

2. Heard
the learned advocates for the respective parties. It is an admitted
position that for the very same period which is in dispute, the
applicant assessee had succeeded upto Tribunal and the decision of
the Tribunal has attained finality considering the fact that belated
appeal filed by respondent department was not entertained by the Apex
Court.

3. The
case of the respondent department is primarily based on
classification decided in case of some other assessee by the Apex
Court contrary to the classification adopted in case of applicant
assessee. However, that would not obliterate the existing order of
the Tribunal in favour of the applicant assessee at this stage. At
the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that the present
proceedings are relatable to the same period for which applicant
assessee has already succeeded and there is no dispute as to this
fact.

4. In
the aforesaid circumstances, respondent department is directed not to
effect any recovery on the basis of notice of demand dated 26.9.2007
till final disposal of Tax Appeal No.331 of 2006. The application is
allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute accordingly.

(D.A.

MEHTA, J.)

(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)

shekhar/-

   

Top