SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 70

2012(3) SCC 518
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. DATTU & ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI - Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. MINIMAX INDUSTRIES - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1545 of 2012 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26078 of 2011)
Decided on 02-02-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal filed without proper papers is not maintainable.

Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal – Revenue filing appeal but without the final impugned order – Instead, only interim order filed – Appeal dismissed for absence of proper papers. (Para 6)

       Facts of the case:

       Adjudicating Authority denied the claim of the Assessee for exemption.

       His appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority.

       The CESTAT reversed the findings and the conclusions reached by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority.

       Revenue had approached the High Court which rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appeal is not maintainable in absence of proper papers.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in CEAC No.12/2010 dated 17.01.2011.

3. The Adjudicating Authority, while deciding the issue whether exemption should be granted to the Respondent-Assessee under Notification No.1/93 dated 28.02.2003 had denied the claim of the Assessee. Aggrieved by that, the assessee had carried the matter by filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. Against the said order,the Assessee had carried the matter before the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT'). The CESTAT, by its order dated 12.01.2010 has reversed the findings and the conclusions reached by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue had approached the High Court in C.E.A.C. No.12/2010. The High Court, while affirming the view of the CESTAT has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is before us in this appeal.

5. After hearing the matter for some time, we notice that the Revenue has not produced the order passed by CESTAT dated 10.01.2010 and the only order produced by them is the interim passed by CESTAT and not the final orders against which the appeal had been preferred by the Revenue before the High Court.

6. In the absence of the order passed by the CESTAT on merits, which has been affirmed by the High Court, it would not be proper for us to decide the lis between the parties. Further, we would be handicapped while appreciating the stand of the Assessee as well as the Revenue, while appreciating the legal issues that the parties would urge before us. In that view of the matter, we reject the appeal solely on the ground that the Revenue has not filed the appropriate papers before this Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top