Cce Vs. Allied Electronics

Cce vs Allied Electronics

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 17, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/11377

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/11377
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S T G.R., a Unni
Decided On: Jun 17, 1997
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Allied Electronics

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(90)ECC333

Excerpt

.....(appeals) on 13.5.1988. the ld. collector (appeals) considered the issue on merits alone and allowed their appeal but did not take into consideration that the appeal filed by the appellants was beyond the time for filing appeal allowed under section 35 of central excises and salt act, 1944. against this the department has filed the present appeal before us.2. shri p.k. jain, the ld. sdr arguing appeal on behalf of the appellant commissioner submits that asstt. collector is the proper officer who can deny modvat credit. he submits that the asst. collector by his letter dated 28.8.1987 had informed the respondents that modvat credit on the items was not admissible to them. that against this order the appellants filed the appeal which was received in the office of ld.collector (appeals) on 13.5.1988. the ld. sdr submitted that the appeal was much beyond a period of 3 months. he submits that no doubt the collector (appeals) has power to condone a delay of three months; that even if this power of the ld. collector (appeals) is taken into consideration the appeal filed is still beyond the time of six months.he, therefore, submits that on this ground alone the order passed by the ld. collector (appeals) reserves to be set aside. he therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed.4. heard the submissions of the ld. sdr. perused the records. we find that the order which has been appealed against was communicated by the asstt. collector on 20.8.1987. appeal against this order was submitted by the appellants on 13.5.1988. thus, the appeal was filed beyond a period of 8 months since the maximum time admissible including that condonable is six months. the appeal was filed beyond a period of 8 months therefore we agree with the contention of ld. sdr that the appeal is hit by limitation. we therefore hold that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. collector (appeals) was time barred. the appeal of the department is therefore allowed and the impugned order is set.....

Full Judgment

1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondents therein imported Hurbrings and Lap film and claimed Modvat credit of duty. In this case the appellants took credit of duty on the above imported item on 5.4.1986. Whereas the declaration was filed on 24.4.1986. On 8.7.1987 they filed a request under Rule 57H for availing Modvat credit in respect of, inputs for which a declaration was filed on 24.4.1986. The Asstt. Collector rejected their application on 20.8.1987. Against this order of the Asstt. Collector the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Collector (Appeals) on 13.5.1988. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) considered the issue on merits alone and allowed their appeal but did not take into consideration that the appeal filed by the appellants Was beyond the time for filing appeal allowed under Section 35 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Against this the Department has filed the present appeal before us.

2. Shri P.K. Jain, the Ld. SDR arguing appeal on behalf of the appellant Commissioner submits that Asstt. Collector is the proper officer who can deny Modvat credit. He submits that the Asst. Collector by his letter dated 28.8.1987 had informed the respondents that Modvat credit on the items was not admissible to them. That against this order the appellants filed the appeal which was received in the office of Ld.

Collector (Appeals) on 13.5.1988. The Ld. SDR submitted that the appeal was much beyond a period of 3 months. He submits that no doubt the Collector (Appeals) has power to condone a delay of three months; that even if this power of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) is taken into consideration the appeal filed is still beyond the time of six months.

He, therefore, submits that on this ground alone the order passed by the Ld. Collector (Appeals) reserves to be set aside. He therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed.

4. Heard the submissions of the Ld. SDR. Perused the records. We find that the order which has been appealed against was communicated by the Asstt. Collector on 20.8.1987. Appeal against this order was submitted by the appellants on 13.5.1988. Thus, the appeal was filed beyond a period of 8 months since the maximum time admissible including that condonable is six months. The appeal was filed beyond a period of 8 months therefore we agree with the contention of Ld. SDR that the appeal is hit by limitation. We therefore hold that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. Collector (Appeals) was time barred. The appeal of the Department is therefore allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Allied Electronics Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T G.R., a Unni