Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Mr. B.S. Garg, The Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal

2016 (4) TMI 978 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Condonation of delay of more than 2200 days - Held that:- there is hardly any reason for the long delay. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the above appeals. Hence, in a matter that arose out of the show cause notices issued in 1999, do not propose to entertain these appeals. - Decided against the revenue - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.281 to 284 & 399 to 420 of 2016, CMP.Nos.2331 to 2333 & 302 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tribunal. 2. Heard Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Department. 3. These appeals arise out of three sets of cases. In one set of cases, a proprietary concern by name M/s.Indian Steel and Allied Products, Chennai, its sole proprietor B.S.Garg, a broker, who arranged for selling their goods and two persons, who sold the goods under invoices, became the noticees. In the second set of cases, a partnership firm by name M/s.Goyal Ispat Udyog, which now appear t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issued in all the three sets of cases way back on 2.6.1999. The notices resulted in Orders in Original being passed on 27.4.2004. As against the Orders in Original, the Department filed only three main appeals in E/380/2005 as against M/s.Indian Steel and Allied Products, E/436/2005 as against M/s.Goyal Ispat Udhog and E/483/2005 as against M/s.Indira Ispat Udyog. These appeals, filed in the year 2005, came up for final hearing in the year 2012. 5. In the course of arguments of the appeals, tak .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for condonation of delay, the Department claimed that the appeals were filed with a delay upon the advice of the Special Counsel. The applications for condonation of delay comprised of seven paragraphs. Paragraphs 5 and 6 alone sought to project the semblance of a reason, which is actually an apology of a reason for condonation of delay. These paragraphs read as follows : "5. Based on the directions of the Board, a single appeal was filed inadvertently naming M/s. Indian Steel and Allied P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tification for condonation of the same, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay. As against the order dismissing the applications for condonation of delay, the Department has come up with these appeals. 8. The main concern of the Department appears to be that if proprietors/partners/brokers as well as those, who issued bills for selling goods, are left out, the main appeals, filed by the Department against the manufacturer, may also fail. 9. But, this concern of the Depa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version