|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 554 Records
-
2004 (6) TMI 364
Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of duty and penalty against the appellant.
- Confiscation of diesel engines and imposition of penalties under various sections.
- Alleged technical and procedural lapses leading to the initiation of proceedings.
- Interpretation of duty paid character of the goods in question.
- Justification of confiscation based on the failure to hand over invoices.
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the confirmation of demand of duty and penalties against the appellant. The lower authorities confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 6,921/- along with penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Additionally, 22 diesel engines were confiscated, and penalties were imposed on the appellant under various sections. The trucks were also confiscated with an option to redeem. The appellant sought to decide the appeal based on written submissions, and the matter was heard by the Judicial Member representing the Revenue.
2. The case involved alleged technical and procedural lapses where the invoices did not cover the total quantity of diesel engines found during a visit to the factory premises. It was discovered that the invoices were issued but not handed over to the transporters due to a mistake. The authorities did not accept the appellant's contention that the goods were duty paid and referred to a CBEC circular in support of their position. However, the authorities passed an order against the appellant, leading to the present appeals.
3. The Judicial Member found that the duty paid character of the goods was not in doubt. The Commissioner (Appeals) had observed ulterior motives behind the failure to hand over the invoices and did not accept the argument that the rectification of the lapse should prevent confiscation. The Judicial Member disagreed with this reasoning, stating that confiscation of duty-paid goods solely due to the failure to hand over invoices was not justified. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants if applicable.
This judgment highlights the importance of the duty paid status of goods and the justification required for confiscation based on procedural lapses. The decision emphasizes the need for a clear link between alleged violations and the actual duty liability, ensuring that confiscation is proportionate and justified in such cases.
-
2004 (6) TMI 363
Issues:
Classification dispute involving machines manufactured and cleared by the assessee to textile mills during 1990-91.
Analysis:
1. The appeal involves a classification dispute regarding machines manufactured and cleared by the assessee to textile mills during 1990-91. The Commissioner (Appeals) classified the machines under Heading 84.48, while the department contended that the goods should be classified under Heading 84.79. The challenge in the appeal pertains to the classification of a specific machine used for mounting card clothing on carding cylinders, although the department claimed that the classification of all machines was in dispute.
2. The impugned machines are identified as mounting machines used to replace old parts on textile machines. Specifically, the classification dispute revolves around the machine for mounting card clothing on carding cylinders. The classification of other machines was already decided by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The classification of the machine for mounting card clothing on carding cylinders was debated thoroughly. The Revenue argued that this machine has an independent function of replacing worn-out card clothing on carding cylinders, not directly associated with textile machines under Headings 84.44 to 84.47. The HSN Notes on Heading 84.79 categorically place this machine under Item No. 13 in Part III. However, the respondents argued that when the Tariff Heading is clear, HSN Notes should not be considered. They contended that Heading 84.48 is functionally specific to the machines in question. The Revenue relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of HSN Explanatory Notes in tariff classification.
4. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the machine in question was not specifically mentioned under Heading 84.48 but was explicitly listed under HSN Heading 84.79. The machine's function of replacing worn-out card clothing on carding cylinders was deemed independent and not integrally connected to the continuous manufacturing process associated with the carding cylinder. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, classifying the machine under Heading 84.79 and setting aside the lower appellate authority's classification decision.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the classification dispute, arguments presented by both sides, reliance on legal precedents, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal regarding the classification of the machine in question.
-
2004 (6) TMI 362
Issues:
1. Entitlement to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of the provisions related to refund claims post-amendment of Section 11B.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had filed a refund claim under Section 11BB for a specific period, which was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner. The Commissioner observed that the appellant was entitled to interest from the date of expiry of three months from the enactment of Section 11BB. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal, arguing that no interest accrued as the claim was filed after the receipt of the Tribunal order and was sanctioned within three months. The Tribunal held that the order passed by them was deemed to be an order under Section 11B, and interest would be applicable from the expiry of three months from the enactment of Section 11BB. The Commissioner's decision was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected.
2. The second issue revolved around the interpretation of provisions related to refund claims following the amendment of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue contended that post-amendment, an assessee was required to file a formal refund application even if the refund arose from an appellate order. The appellant argued against this, stating that the Tribunal's order should be treated as an order under Section 11B, and interest should accrue accordingly. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the Tribunal's order was deemed to be under Section 11B for the purpose of interest calculation. Therefore, the requirement for the assessee to file a formal refund application was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected based on this interpretation.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the entitlement to interest under Section 11BB and interpreted the provisions related to refund claims post-amendment of Section 11B in favor of the appellant, rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2004 (6) TMI 361
Issues:
Penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act on two persons acting on behalf of a Custom House Agent for the clearance of silver covered by twenty Bills of Entry.
Analysis:
The appeals were filed by two individuals who acted on behalf of a Custom House Agent (CHA) for the clearance of silver covered by twenty Bills of Entry. The penalties imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act were challenged. The first appellant, Shri R. Padmanabhan, held a Power of Attorney from M/s. Swamy & Company, making him eligible for clearance purposes under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The second appellant, Shri K. Kirupanidhi, was employed by Shri Padmanabhan to process import documents. The goods had appropriate customs duty paid, but issues arose during physical removal, leading to confiscation and penalties. The original authority ordered confiscation and imposed penalties under Section 112, excluding the CHA from penalties but issuing a warning. The appeals against these penalties were unsuccessful at the Commissioner (Appeals) level, prompting further appeals.
The argument presented was that no evidence was provided by the lower authorities to justify penalizing the appellants under Section 112. The necessary factual findings were deemed missing in the authorities' orders. The consultant contended that if the CHA was cleared of charges related to the consignments, it was improper to proceed against individuals working under the CHA. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) reiterated the original and lower appellate authorities' findings.
Upon careful consideration, it was noted that the penalties were based on the finding that the appellants abetted the clearance of goods subject to confiscation. Section 112(a) of the Customs Act deals with improper importation and penalties for acts or omissions leading to goods being liable for confiscation. It was found that the appellants were penalized for abetting clearance, even though the CHA, M/s. Swamy & Company, was not penalized. As the CHA was cleared of penalties, there was no basis for penalizing the appellants for actions carried out on behalf of the CHA. Consequently, the imposition of penalties on the appellants for activities conducted on behalf of the CHA was deemed unfounded, leading to the allowance of the appeals with consequential reliefs for the appellants.
-
2004 (6) TMI 360
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of definitive Anti-Dumping duty on imports of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) from Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.
2. Alleged material injury to the domestic industry.
3. Alleged improper period of investigation and data analysis by the Designated Authority.
4. Allegations of price undercutting and price suppression by dumped imports.
5. Threat of injury due to excess production capacity in dumping countries.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition of definitive Anti-Dumping duty on imports of PSF:
The appeals challenge the imposition of definitive Anti-Dumping duty on imports of PSF from Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand under Notification No. 43/2003-Cus., dated 21st March 2003, based on the Final Finding (Notification No. 22/1/2001 DGAD, dated 24th December 2002) by the Designated Authority in the Ministry of Commerce. The Designated Authority concluded that the subject goods were dumped, causing material injury and threat to the domestic industry.
2. Alleged material injury to the domestic industry:
The importers argued that there was no material injury to the domestic industry from the purported dumping. They contended that the conclusion of material injury was reached through a distorted and improper presentation and analysis of data. They criticized the assumption that the domestic industry should have a fixed return on capital every year, which they argued was contrary to open market norms and created an artificial risk-free environment for the domestic industry. The Tribunal agreed that the claim of material injury was not justified by the data, especially considering the domestic industry's healthy return on capital in the year 1999-2000 and the absence of significant price suppression.
3. Alleged improper period of investigation and data analysis by the Designated Authority:
The importers pointed out that the Designated Authority chose an improper period of investigation (January 2000 to September 2000), which straddled parts of two financial years and could not yield reliable data for proper financial analysis. They alleged that this choice was made to obfuscate and favor the domestic industry. The Tribunal found no reason to be detained by these contentions, given the data available during the appeal proceedings.
4. Allegations of price undercutting and price suppression by dumped imports:
The importers argued that there was no significant price undercutting or price suppression by the dumped imports. The Tribunal noted that the domestic industry's sale prices were higher than the prices of imported goods during the last six months of the Period of Investigation and that the domestic industry was able to raise selling prices during this period. The Tribunal concluded that the finding of price suppression or undercutting was not tenable given the actual data and the independent movement of domestic and import prices.
5. Threat of injury due to excess production capacity in dumping countries:
The domestic industry claimed a threat of injury due to the surplus production capacity in the dumping countries. The Tribunal emphasized that the Anti-Dumping Rules require a clearly foreseen and imminent threat of injury. Since the dumped prices were not causing material injury, the existence of surplus production capacity could not be considered a threat of injury.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the findings regarding material injury and threat of injury were not sustainable. Consequently, the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty was not permissible. The appeals of the importers were allowed, and Notification No. 43/2003-Cus. imposing duty was set aside. The appeal of the domestic manufacturers of PSF was rejected.
-
2004 (6) TMI 359
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the miscellaneous application seeking restoration of appeal and stay petition which were dismissed earlier. The appeal and stay application were re-called and the stay application was posted for hearing on 9th July, 2004. The application was allowed in the above terms.
-
2004 (6) TMI 358
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties for M/s. Vallabh Pesticides P. Ltd.
2. Valuation of pesticides manufactured as a job worker for United Phosphorous Ltd.
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties amounting to Rs. 51,43,900.80 confirmed against M/s. Vallabh Pesticides P. Ltd. The duty was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, along with penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The penalties also included amounts on the directors of the company. The demand of duty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, based on the application of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. The contention of the job worker that their valuation method, based on the Ujagar Prints decision of the Supreme Court, was correct, was rejected. The Tribunal noted that the job worker was not conclusively determined to be an independent worker, and therefore, the method of valuation adopted by them was considered prima facie correct. As a result, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalties, staying the recovery pending the appeals.
2. The second issue in the judgment pertains to the valuation of pesticides manufactured by M/s. Vallabh Pesticides P. Ltd. as a job worker for United Phosphorous Ltd. The Tribunal observed that the reasoning behind applying Rule 7 for valuation was the assumption that M/s. Vallabh Pesticides P. Ltd. were not independent job workers eligible for the Ujagar Prints formula. However, in the absence of a definitive finding that they were hired laborers and not independent job workers, the Tribunal found the method of valuation adopted by the company to be prima facie correct. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalties and stayed the recovery pending the appeals.
In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved issues related to the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties for M/s. Vallabh Pesticides P. Ltd. and the valuation of pesticides manufactured as a job worker for United Phosphorous Ltd. The Tribunal found the method of valuation adopted by the company to be prima facie correct, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and penalties pending the appeals.
-
2004 (6) TMI 357
Issues: Classification of medicaments under Chapter 3003.10 vs. 3003.20, Modvat credit availed, Generic names in prescribed books.
Classification under Chapter 3003.10 vs. 3003.20:
The appellants manufactured medicaments for various loan licensees/companies and filed a claim for classification of specific products under different classification lists. The Revenue appealed for setting aside the approval of these lists under 3003.10 and requested classification under 3003.20 as Generic Medicaments. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellants used a house mark as a brand name on containers labels, leading to upholding the classification under 3003.20 for products sold in generic names. However, specific names like Ampicillin, Cloxacillin, and Lyramycin were deemed non-generic as they were not found in prescribed books. The Tribunal noted that the placing of a house mark/logo alone does not warrant classification under 3003.10, as per the Astra Pharmaceuticals case. The Tribunal directed a reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) for certain entities to determine the exact marks on labels/containers and reclassify accordingly.
Modvat credit availed:
The appellants availed Modvat credit on inputs and utilized it for product clearance. The Revenue appealed to deny the Modvat credit availed. The Tribunal's decision did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided.
Generic names in prescribed books:
The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that names like Ampicillin, Cloxacillin, and Lyramycin did not fall under generic medicaments as they were not found in prescribed books. The Tribunal directed a reexamination by the Commissioner (Appeals) to determine the exact marks on labels/containers for proper classification. The issue of generic names in prescribed books was crucial in deciding the classification under Chapter 3003.10 or 3003.20.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the classification under 3003.20 for products sold in generic names, directed a reevaluation for specific entities, and upheld the classification under 3003.20 for Gentamycin Injection. The judgment provided detailed analysis on the classification issues, the use of house marks, and the importance of generic names in prescribed books for accurate classification of medicaments under the relevant chapters.
-
2004 (6) TMI 356
Issues:
Whether the appellants were manufacturing excisable goods bearing each other's brand names, making them ineligible for the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000.
Analysis:
The appeals filed by two entities revolved around the issue of manufacturing excisable goods bearing each other's brand names. The appellants, both engaged in manufacturing PET Bottles, inadvertently used each other's dyes due to a mix-up during repair. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty against both appellants, citing the use of each other's brand names on the PET bottles. The appellants argued that the mix-up occurred unintentionally and that there was no motive for such actions. They contended that the mistake arose from a change in dyes received after repair, leading to the unintended use of each other's brand names. Additionally, they highlighted that no orders were placed for manufacturing bottles bearing the other party's brand name. The appellants also referenced a Board's Circular to support their case.
In response, the Revenue argued that the mistake should have been identified immediately after the dyes were put to use, rather than continuing production for a significant period. They also disputed the applicability of the Board's Circular, stating that the brand names on the PET Bottles did not belong to manufacturers or traders using the bottles for packing.
Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that both appellants manufactured PET Bottles bearing their respective brand names. The mix-up in dyes led to the inadvertent use of each other's brand names on the bottles. The Adjudicating Authority acknowledged the plausibility of the appellants' explanation, emphasizing the absence of evidence indicating deliberate evasion of excise duty. Notably, no documentary evidence was found to establish intentional manufacturing and sale of branded goods. The Tribunal concurred with these findings, emphasizing that there was no motive for the appellants to manufacture bottles bearing each other's brand names. Given the circumstances and lack of evidence supporting deliberate action, the Tribunal set aside the demand of duty against both appellants, allowing their appeals.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified that the unintentional use of each other's brand names on PET Bottles resulted from a mix-up in dyes, rather than a deliberate attempt to evade excise duty. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting intentional wrongdoing and the plausible explanation provided by the appellants regarding the mix-up.
-
2004 (6) TMI 355
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi granted waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties for blending ice cream with flavors to make sundaes and shakes. The applicants argued that they added flavor to duty paid ice cream before serving. Waiver granted for hearing of appeals. Adjourned to 24th August, 2004.
-
2004 (6) TMI 354
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arising from Commissioner's order confirming duty amounts and penalties.
The judgment addresses the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty stemming from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat's order confirming duty amounts and penalties on various entities. The duty amounts and penalties were confirmed on M/s. Somani International, M/s. Mahesh Texturisers, Mr. Shankar S. Somani, and Mr. Mahesh S. Somani. The demands were made due to the contention that the benefit of Notification 1/93-C.E. for small-scale units was not available to the companies as they used the brand name "Sumilon" of M/s. Sumeet Synthetics Limited for the texturised yarn they manufactured.
Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the tribunal found merit in the applicants' argument that prima facie, the benefit of the SSI notification should be granted. This decision was based on the fact that the brand names were affixed on packing slips of textured yarn by the applicants, who were job workers, and the yarn was sent for twisting and subsequently sold by M/s. Sumeet Synthetics Limited. The tribunal concluded that the use of the brand name was not "in the course of trade." This interpretation was supported by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Industries v. CCE, Bhubaneswar, and subsequent cases like Kohinoor Elastic (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore-II, and Ambaji Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat-I. Consequently, a strong prima facie case for waiver was established, leading to the tribunal dispensing with the pre-deposit of duties and penalties and staying the recovery pending the appeals.
-
2004 (6) TMI 353
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue on classification grounds. The matter was remitted back to the original authority for redetermination of the issue of limitation. The appeal was partially allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 352
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the Appellant, granting a waiver of pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The classification under Heading 84.13 was deemed applicable for pumps used in city water supply. The case was fixed for early hearing due to the amount involved being more than Rs. 1.00 crore, with a regular hearing set for 2-8-2004.
-
2004 (6) TMI 351
Issues: Classification of imported vessels under CTA, 1975 and Exim Policy 1997-2002; Alleged violation of import restrictions and licensing requirements; Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Customs Act.
The judgment dealt with the classification of vessels imported for construction work under the CTA, 1975 and Exim Policy 1997-2002. The appellants imported inflatable and fiberglass boats for a project and claimed clearance under specific provisions. However, a show cause notice alleged misclassification under CTH 8903.99 and violation of import restrictions under Exim Code 890399.01.90. The Commissioner confiscated the goods, imposed a fine, and penalty under the Customs Act, leading to the appeal.
The appellants contended that the inflatable boat falls under ITC HS 890310.00.10 for sports and fiberglass boats under ITC HS 890399.09.10, making them freely importable. The adjudicating authority acknowledged the boats' recreational use but deemed their intended work-related purpose as grounds for confiscation. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the end-use does not alter the classification for importation. Referring to previous cases, it upheld the importers' claim that the goods were indeed freely importable, setting aside the confiscation and penalty, thereby allowing the appeal.
-
2004 (6) TMI 350
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi granted waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for an appeal regarding Black & White television sets. The applicant reversed credit at the end of the month, leading to a favorable decision based on the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. v. CCE. Adjourned for further arguments on 20-9-2004.
-
2004 (6) TMI 349
Issues:
- Imposition of penalty for taking excess credit on invoices issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the imposition of a penalty on the respondents for taking excess credit based on invoices issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Revenue challenged the order-in-appeal where the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue argued that the penalty was mandatory as the respondents took excess credit illegally. However, the Tribunal found that the circumstances of the case did not warrant upholding the penalty. It was revealed from the record that the excess credit was taken by the respondents on furnace oil purchased from IOC Ltd, based on the duty shown in the invoices. Subsequently, it was discovered that the IOC had mistakenly shown excess duty in the invoices. Upon being informed of this error, the respondents promptly reversed the excess credit. The Tribunal concluded that the fault, if any, lay with the IOC, and the respondents acted in good faith by rectifying the situation upon learning of the mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that no penalty should be imposed on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed to have rightly set aside the penalty, and the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
This judgment highlights the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding an alleged violation before imposing penalties. It underscores the principle that penalties should be reserved for cases where deliberate wrongdoing or negligence is evident, rather than instances where errors are promptly rectified upon discovery. The decision also emphasizes the need for fairness and equity in tax matters, ensuring that penalties are imposed judiciously and proportionately.
-
2004 (6) TMI 348
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) decision that a special discount of 12% to original equipment manufacturers is not deductible under Customs Valuation Rules and must be added to the declared value for Customs valuation. The appeal was rejected as the discount was subject to the condition that goods were used by original equipment manufacturers, making it ineligible for deduction.
-
2004 (6) TMI 347
Issues: Confiscation of imported batteries due to misdeclaration of rechargeable status and undervaluation.
Confiscation due to Misdeclaration:
The appeal was against the confiscation of a consignment of batteries imported by the appellant, where the goods were declared as "not rechargeable" but were found to be rechargeable upon examination. The appellant's explanation that the clearing clerk mistakenly added the description "Not rechargeable" was rejected by the authorities. The lower authorities held that the description and value of the goods had been misdeclared. The Additional Commissioner revalued the goods, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 90,000, and a penalty of Rs. 15,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found no merit in the appellant's case. The Tribunal, after perusing the records and hearing both sides, upheld the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer is responsible for the particulars declared in the bill of entry. The documents produced by the appellant were deemed vague and lacking essential particulars for valuation. The Customs authorities were justified in rejecting the declared value and reassessing the goods based on their own pricing, leading to the confiscation of the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the misdeclaration of both price and description warranted the confiscation, and thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Undervaluation of Goods:
The Customs authorities noted discrepancies in the declared values of the batteries compared to the floor prices and approved valuations. The appellant's invoice from Busino Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong, did not specify whether the batteries were rechargeable or not, only describing them as "Hi-watt Brand Ni-CD Battery." The declared prices were considered false and too low by the Customs authorities. The approved valuation for the batteries was significantly higher than the declared value, leading to the initiation of confiscation and other proceedings. The Tribunal supported the Customs authorities' decision to reject the declared value and revalue the goods based on their own assessment, emphasizing the lack of essential particulars in the invoice for proper valuation. The Tribunal found that the entire transaction lacked transparency and confidence, with the documents produced by the appellant facilitating misdeclaration and undervaluation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the revaluation of the goods by the authorities and the imposition of fines and penalties, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
-
2004 (6) TMI 346
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi modified their previous order and granted exemption in pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The appeal was scheduled for hearing on 16-9-2004. Justice K.K. Usha and Shri C.N.B. Nair were part of the tribunal. Shri Nand Kishor represented the Appellant, and Shri S.M. Tapas represented the Respondent.
-
2004 (6) TMI 345
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai dismissed an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise due to failure to file other 34 appeals as required by Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The department later filed the remaining appeals with condonation of delay petitions, which was granted. The appeal was registered for further proceedings.
............
|
9911796707
