UNION OF INDIA Vs. UMOSH DHAIMODE
LAWS(SC)-1997-2-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
February 13,1997
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
Umosh Dhaimode
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. MEDICO LABS [LAWS(GJH)-2004-9-82] [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VS. ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I VS. VIKRAM DHAWAN [LAWS(CE)-2012-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
HAWKINS COOKERS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD [LAWS(CE)-2012-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. ANAND COLOUR LAB [LAWS(CE)-2014-6-80] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT VS. SINGH ALLOYS (P) LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2012-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE VS. MAURYA EXPORT HOUSE [LAWS(CE)-2006-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
N. RANGA RAO & SONS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2008-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM VS. VASAVADATTA CEMENT [LAWS(CE)-2008-5-129] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-III VS. PANIHATI CASTINGS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2008-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
C.C.& C.EX., MEERUT II VS. M/S HSA CHADHA EXPORTS [LAWS(CE)-2012-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KHANNA VS. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CE)-2009-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I) VS. POSHS METAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2009-6-164] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. KODAI AUTOMOBILES LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2010-8-93] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHWARI AGRO INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. VS. ASIA WOVEN SACKS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2003-10-251] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM FOUNDRY METAL WORKS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-143] [REFERRED]
M/S HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-222] [REFERRED TO]
A.S. BABU SAH DESIGNS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-307] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI SERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2021-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The then Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, took the view that Section 128 (2 of the Customs Act, 1962, as it then read, did not vest the appellate authority with the power to remand. Accordingly, he set aside such order and the Revenue is in appeal
(2.)As the order under appeal itself notes, the aforesaid provision vested the appellate authority with powers to pass such order as it deemed fit confirming, modifying or annulling the decision appealed against. An order of remand necessarily annuls the decision which is under appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is also invested with the power to pass such order as it deems fit. Both these portions of the aforesaid provision, read together, necessarily imply that the appellate authority has the power to set aside the decision which is under appeal before it and to remand the matter to the authority below for fresh decision.
(3.)We may point out that the respondent has not appeared but has filed an affidavit which suggests that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) appellate tribunal had also taken the view that the appellate authority, on an application made to it by another person in the same position as the respondent, could not have remanded this matter. If that order of the tribunal remains in operation, the authority below shall, notwithstanding this order, not be entitled to proceed.
(2.)As the order under appeal itself notes, the aforesaid provision vested the appellate authority with powers to pass such order as it deemed fit confirming, modifying or annulling the decision appealed against. An order of remand necessarily annuls the decision which is under appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is also invested with the power to pass such order as it deems fit. Both these portions of the aforesaid provision, read together, necessarily imply that the appellate authority has the power to set aside the decision which is under appeal before it and to remand the matter to the authority below for fresh decision.
(3.)We may point out that the respondent has not appeared but has filed an affidavit which suggests that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) appellate tribunal had also taken the view that the appellate authority, on an application made to it by another person in the same position as the respondent, could not have remanded this matter. If that order of the tribunal remains in operation, the authority below shall, notwithstanding this order, not be entitled to proceed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.