Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce

Mirc Electronics Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 30, 1998

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12748

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/12748
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: V T K.S., J S Murthy
Decided On: Jan 30, 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

Mirc Electronics Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(75)LC272Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. after hearing the id. counsel for the applicants and the id. sdr for the department, we find that the appeal has to be remanded. the impugned order makes out that the commissioner of central excise (appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal memorandum was not signed by the appellants in both the copies and so.it cannot be considered as an appeal. the id. counsel has cited the case law 1992 (62) elt 938 (t) : 1992 (43) ecr 75 (t) in the case of sharda anand v. collector of customs, according to which failure to sign memo of appeal by the party is a curable irregularity and appeal not to be dismissed on this ground, when appeal accepted and number also given after registering it. papers to be returned for rectification of defects. in view of this precedent decision, the appeal is allowed by remand to the commissioner of central excise, mumbai.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing the Id. counsel for the applicants and the Id. SDR for the department, we find that the appeal has to be remanded. The impugned order makes out that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal memorandum was not signed by the appellants in both the copies and so.

it cannot be considered as an appeal. The Id. counsel has cited the case law 1992 (62) ELT 938 (T) : 1992 (43) ECR 75 (T) in the case of Sharda Anand v. Collector of Customs, according to which failure to sign memo of appeal by the party is a curable irregularity and appeal not to be dismissed on this ground, when appeal accepted and number also given after registering it. Papers to be returned for rectification of defects. In view of this precedent decision, the appeal is allowed by remand to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Mirc Electronics Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge V T K.S., J S Murthy