Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Shilpa on 5 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Shilpa on 5 February, 2010
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

OJCA/213/2008	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 213 of 2008
 

In


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 968 of 2008
 

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

COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

SHILPA
COPPER WIRE INDUSTRIES 100% EOU, - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR GAURANG
H BHATT for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR S SURYANARAYAN with Ms. Anushree Kapadia None
for Respondent(s) : 1, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/02/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)

The
applicant, Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat has filed this
application praying for stay against the operation, implementation
and execution of the judgment and order dated 27.11.2007/6.2.2008
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in
Appeal No. E/368/2006.

The
Commissioner of Central Excise has filed Tax appeal No. 968 of 2008.
The said Tax Appeal was admitted on 20.6.2009 and substantial
questions of law were framed.

Heard
Mr. Gaurang Bhatt, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
applicant and Mr. Suryanarayan, learned counsel with Ms. Anushree
Kapadia, learned advocate for the opponent.

Mr.

Suryanarayan has submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the
CESTAT, the refund has already been received by the opponent-assessee
and hence there is no question of staying the order passed by the
CESTAT. He has further submitted that even while passing the order,
the CESTAT has relied on its own order in the case of Amitex Silk
Mills v. CCE. The Revenue has challenged the said order of CESTAT
before the Apex Court and though the appeal was admitted by the Apex
Court, the stay was not granted.

In
that view of the matter, there is no question of granting any stay
against the order of CESTAT. This application is therefore rejected.

Office
is directed to place the main Tax Appeal No. 968 of 2008 on board on
10.2.2010.

(K.A.

Puj, J.)

(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)

(hn)

   

Top