Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. Purushottam Lohia Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I

2016 (12) TMI 910 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Period of limitation - Held that: - when the appellant is an independent person(notice) in case, how the order served on some other person can be treated as service of order to the appellant - We fail to understand when the appellant is an independen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (technical) Shri Purushottam Lohia, Self for Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R) for respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant as time barred. We theref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) was filed well within the time from the date of receipt of the order. He submits that the order was served on the company and not to him. Only after knowing the service of the order to the company, he approach .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso reduced from ₹ 2,50,000/- to ₹ 10,000/- therefore the appellant being only an employee who does not derive any personal gain, should be exonerated from the penalty imposed on him. 3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly considered the submissions made by both the sides. Since the Ld. Commissioner has dismissed the appeal being time barred, we need not to go into the merit of the case and only to decide whether the order on the ground of time bar is sustainable or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nspite of being aware of the outcome of the said order has filed this appeal on 08.02.2005. The appellant holds a responsible position in M/s. Dhanvarsha Dyeing P. Ltd., who filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was disposed of by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y enclosing a copy of the impugned order sent to the appellant s company. Appellant has filed this appeal after more than 18 months. Thus, appellant was not vigilant and necessary importance of was not given. In the case of M/s. Niwas Spinning Mills .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lack of care is not condonable. The ratio of above orders is squarely applicable in the instant case. The delay is inordinate and beyond the condonable period empowered to Commissioner (Appeal). Thus, there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version