Case Law Details
Riba Textiles Limited Vs CCE & ST, Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Provisions of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 clearly show that every claim of refund, every proceeding of appeal, review or reference filed/initiated whether on or before the appointed day i. e. 1.7.2017 under the existing law which means the jurisdiction for the purpose of every claim of refund, every proceeding of appeal, review or reference before this Tribunal shall be dealt under the provision Central Excise law and not by the provision of CGST law. As per the order dated 13.7.2012, the appellant falls under the jurisdiction of DC Range Panipat and the DC Range, Panipat is under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula. Therefore, CESTAT do not find any merit in the ROM application as well as miscellaneous application for modification in the ROM application filed by the Revenue.
Read Punjab & Haryana High Court Order: Revenue cannot take the plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to GST regime
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
The Revenue has also filed application for early hearing of the application for rectification of mistake. As the said application has already listed today for hearing, therefore, the application for early hearing of the application for rectification of mistake has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same dismissed as infructuous.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
