Murray v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY APPEALS : Jurisdiction) [2015] UKFTT 371 (TC) (24 July 2015)

Murray v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY APPEALS : Jurisdiction) [2015] UKFTT 371 (TC) (24 July 2015)

The Tribunal refused HMRC’s application to strike out the appeal because Mr Murray may have alternative grounds (Consumption and Proportionality points) to pursue, and the overriding objective of the Rules to deal with cases fairly and justly would be served by allowing him to reconsider his grounds of appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 371
Parties
Appellant: James Murray; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
HMRC’s application to strike out the appeal refused
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Assessment, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Condemnation Proceedings, Personal Use Defence, Proportionality, EU Excise Directive
Tax Law Excise Law Excise Duty Assessment Jurisdiction of Tribunal Condemnation Proceedings Personal Use Defence Proportionality EU Excise Directive

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Murray

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of deemed condemnation under paragraph 5, Schedule 3, CEMA 1979
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether alternative grounds (Consumption and Proportionality points) could be raised

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused HMRC’s application to strike out the appeal because Mr Murray may have alternative grounds (Consumption and Proportionality points) to pursue, and the overriding objective of the Rules to deal with cases fairly and justly would be served by allowing him to reconsider his grounds of appeal.

Court Disposition

HMRC’s application to strike out the appeal refused

Orders

  • Directions given to enable the appellant to amend his grounds of appeal if so advised