Progressive Extractions and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Progressive Extractions and vs Collector of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 11, 1997

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12107

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/12107
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Nov 11, 1997
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Progressive Extractions and

Respondent

Collector of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(60)ECC167

Excerpt

1. in this roa application including miscellaneous application, the applicant is seeking recall of the order no. 61/97-b1, dated 20-8-1997 passed on the stay application, by which their stay application was rejected, as they were not present on the date of hearing and they were directed to deposit the duty and penalty. in the application, they have explained that they had not received the notice and hence they were not present on the date of hearing. in support of this plea, they have filed the affidavit. the chartered accountant appearing for the appellants has also filed an affidavit. they had not received the hearing notice and therefore, the stay application was disposed of without effective hearing.3. on a careful consideration of the submission and on perusal of the affidavit, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented from appearing on the date of hearing, which resulted in passing of the order. hence, we recall the stay order which directed them to deposit the duty and penalty and direct the registry to list the stay application today itself for hearing.

Full Judgment

1. In this ROA application including Miscellaneous application, the applicant is seeking recall of the Order No. 61/97-B1, dated 20-8-1997 passed on the stay application, by which their stay application was rejected, as they were not present on the date of hearing and they were directed to deposit the duty and penalty. In the application, they have explained that they had not received the notice and hence they were not present on the date of hearing. In support of this plea, they have filed the affidavit. The Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellants has also filed an affidavit. They had not received the hearing notice and therefore, the stay application was disposed of without effective hearing.

3. On a careful consideration of the submission and on perusal of the affidavit, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented from appearing on the date of hearing, which resulted in passing of the order. Hence, we recall the stay order which directed them to deposit the duty and penalty and direct the registry to list the stay application today itself for hearing.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Progressive Extractions and vs Collector of C. Ex. Same Subject MRTP