Lasanto Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Lasanto Laboratories vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 22, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13304

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/13304
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Apr 22, 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

Lasanto Laboratories

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(108)ELT212TriDel

Excerpt

.....under challenge. in the order-in appeal, the collector of central excise (appeals), bombay had come to a finding that there had been mis-statement and suppression of the relevant information relating to the fixation of the trade name of another manufacturer on the patent or proprietory medicines and as such the extended period of limitation was invokable. he had set aside the order-in-original passed by the asstt. collector of central excise, division-9, bombay-ii and had directed that the relevant papers be transferred to the jurisdictional collector for being decided by him.2. the appellants had challenged that part of the order-in-appeal which relates to the invokation of the extended period of limitation. they had also challenged the order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted by the ld, collector of central excise (appeals).4. we have heard shri h.k. jain, sdr and have gone through the facts on record.5. we find that the ld. collector of central excise (appeals) had set aside the order-in-original and had directed that the relevant papers be transferred to the jurisdictional collector of central excise for being decided by him on the ground that he was the competent authority to adjudicate the show cause notice-cum-demand notice.5. there is no information whether the collector of central excise had taken any further action in pursuance of the present order-in-appeal.6. on going through the facts on record, we consider that it would be in the interest of justice if the question of alleged mis-statement and suppression of the relevant information is also decided by the collector of central excise after affording an opportunity to the appellants to present their case. as the order-in-original had already been set aside and the matter had been remanded by the jurisdictional collector of central excise, we do not find any infirmity in this view taken by the ld. collector of central excise (appeals).7......

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Lasanto Laboratories, the Order-in-Appeal dated 27-9-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is under challenge. In the Order-in Appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had come to a finding that there had been mis-statement and suppression of the relevant information relating to the fixation of the trade name of another manufacturer on the patent or proprietory medicines and as such the extended period of limitation was invokable. He had set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division-9, Bombay-II and had directed that the relevant papers be transferred to the jurisdictional Collector for being decided by him.

2. The appellants had challenged that part of the Order-in-Appeal which relates to the invokation of the extended period of limitation. They had also challenged the order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted by the ld, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

4. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.

5. We find that the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had set aside the Order-in-original and had directed that the relevant papers be transferred to the jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise for being decided by him on the ground that he was the competent authority to adjudicate the show cause notice-cum-demand notice.

5. There is no information whether the Collector of Central Excise had taken any further action in pursuance of the present Order-in-Appeal.

6. On going through the facts on record, we consider that it would be in the interest of justice if the question of alleged mis-statement and suppression of the relevant information is also decided by the Collector of Central Excise after affording an opportunity to the appellants to present their case. As the Order-in-Original had already been set aside and the matter had been remanded by the jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise, we do not find any infirmity in this view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

7. With these observations that the jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise will also go into the question of extended period of limitation, we do not find any merit in this appeal and with the above observations, the appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Lasanto Laboratories vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax