TAXAP/1155/2006 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1155 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE& CUSTOMS, SURAT-I - Appellant(s) Versus M/S. C.K. TEXTILES & 3 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARIN P.RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE UNSERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Date : 13/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 On 12.09.2007 Appeal was admitted by framing the TAXAP/1155/2006 2/4 JUDGMENT following question of law : “Whether the Commissioner who is directed by Central Board of Excise and Customs to file appeal under Section 35E(1) read with Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, validly authorise the Superintendent (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs to present such appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and will the appeal so presented be maintainable or not?” 2 However, today while making a separate judgment and order in case of Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Vs. Siddharth Petro Products Ltd., in Tax Appeal No. 1513 of 2006 this Court has reformulated the question and as the controversy involved in the present Appeal is identical, the said reformulated question is taken up for consideration in the present Appeal. The said question reads as under : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case provisions of Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Rules, TAXAP/1155/2006 3/4 JUDGMENT 1944 permit any other person, other than the Commissioner of Central Excise, who is directed by Central Board of Excise and Customs to make an application u/s. 35E(1) of the Act to the Appellate Tribunal, to make such an application?” 3 As can be seen from impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has merely followed its own order made in case of Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Vs. Siddharth Petro Products Ltd.,(supra) by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, hence, it is not necessary to set out facts and contentions in detail. Suffice it to state that the controversy involved in the present Appeal is identical to the controversy in Tax Appeal No. 1513 of 2006. 4. Hence, for the reasons stated in judgment and order of even date rendered in case of Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Vs. Siddharth Petro Products Ltd.,in Tax Appeal No. 1513 of 2006, this Appeal is disposed of with the same directions and the Appeal shall stand restored to file of the Tribunal. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to TAXAP/1155/2006 4/4 JUDGMENT costs. Sd/- (D.A. Mehta, J.) Sd/- (Smt. Abhilasha Kumari,J.) M.M.BHATT