Vickers Systems International Vs. Cce

Vickers Systems International vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 23, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12708

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/12708
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: U Bhat, S T K.
Decided On: Jan 23, 1998
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vickers Systems International

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(75)LC287Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. appellant is absent. appellant was represented before us on the last occasion, namely, 27.11.1997, when we adjourned the appeal to today at the request of the appellant's representative. we have heard shri k.srivastava, sdr.2. under order-in-original dated 18.10.1989, the assistant collector confirmed the demand of rs. 31,500. appellant challenged this order before the collector (appeals) who dismissed the appeal without notice on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the amount of duty demanded nor filed an application for stay. this order is now challenged. a copy of the pla has been produced before us which shows that on 1.8.1990 appellant had debited rs. 31,500 pursuant to the order-in-original passed by the assistant collector. appeal was filed before the collector (appeals) in april 1990 long prior to the pla debit. it is possible that the appellant did not bring to the notice of the collector (appeals) the fact of subsequent debit. nevertheless, the collector (appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal without notice to the appellant. we are satisfied that section 35f of the central excise act, 1944 had been complied with before dismissal of the appeal by the collector (appeals).3. we set aside the impugned order passed by the collector (appeals) and remand the appeal to the jurisdictional commissioner (appeals) for hearing and disposal of the appeal on merits.

Full Judgment

1. Appellant is absent. Appellant was represented before us on the last occasion, namely, 27.11.1997, when we adjourned the appeal to today at the request of the appellant's representative. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR.2. Under Order-in-Original dated 18.10.1989, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 31,500. Appellant challenged this order before the Collector (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal without notice on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the amount of duty demanded nor filed an application for stay. This order is now challenged. A copy of the PLA has been produced before us which shows that on 1.8.1990 appellant had debited Rs. 31,500 pursuant to the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector. Appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals) in April 1990 long prior to the PLA debit. It is possible that the appellant did not bring to the notice of the Collector (Appeals) the fact of subsequent debit. Nevertheless, the Collector (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal without notice to the appellant. We are satisfied that Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been complied with before dismissal of the appeal by the Collector (Appeals).

3. We set aside the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and remand the appeal to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing and disposal of the appeal on merits.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Vickers Systems International vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge U Bhat, S T K.