Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 February, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/523/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 523 of 2010
 

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

 

COMMISSIONER,
SERVICE TAX - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

M/S
SIRHIND STEEL LTD - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
YN RAVANI for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
None for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/02/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

Department
is in appeal against the judgment of Customs, Excise & Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) dated 6.8.2009 by which
appeal of the department came to be dismissed. The issue pertains to
filing of general declaration instead of consignment-wise declaration
by assessee declaring that cenvat credit is not available. Against
the decision of the competent authority dated 7.1.2009, the
Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding
that assessee is eligible to claim the benefit of exemption on the
ground that procedure was substantially complied with as provided in
Notification dated 3.12.2004.

The
Tribunal concurred with the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) and
dismissed the revenue’s appeal relying on the previous decision of
the Tribunal reported in 2008(10)S.T.R.201.

Counsel
for the petitioner candidly stated that above decision of the
Tribunal was not challenged. In addition to above, we also perused
the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal
in the impugned orders. Issues are purely questions of fact and no
substantial questions of law are arising.

The
appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.

(Akil
Kureshi,J)

(Ms.Sonia
Gokani,J)

srilatha

   

Top