Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Modern Paper Converters Vs. Cce

Modern Paper Converters vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 11, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15179

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
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

Modern Paper Converters

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(84)LC441Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....in this case the appellant filed a classification list effective from 15.5.1992 and claimed therein the rate of duty at 25% in respect of their products in view of notification no. 14/92. the classification list was approved by the competent authority at the rate of 40% in view of notification no. 20/93. the appellant filed appeal against this order before the collector of central excise and along with their appeal papers appellants also filed order-in-original dated 13.8.1991 passed by the assistant collector of central excise. appellant by mistake affixed the necessary court fee stamp on the order-in-original dated 13.8.1991 instead of affixing it on the impugned order. before the collector (appeals) the appellant also made a request to affix the necessary court fee stamp on the order but the same was declined.6. the tribunal is taking a consistent view that non-affixing of court fee stamp on the copy of the order-in-original filed before the commissioner is a remediable defect and the appeal should not be dismissed on this ground without giving an opportunity to rectify the defect. the tribunal in the case of central india tobacco products v.collector of central excise , in the casecolfax labs (i) ltd. v.commissioner of central excise specifically held that non-affixing of court fee stamp on the order-in-original is a remedial defect. in view of the above mentioned decisions of the tribunal the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the collector (appeals) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to make up the deficiency of affixing court fee stamp.

Full Judgment

1. Appellants vide their miscellaneous application dated 30.1.1999 made a request to decide their appeal on merits. Therefore the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellant.

2. The appellant has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 14.12.1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.

3. In the impugned order the appeal of the appellant filed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was dismissed only on the ground that the appellants had not affixed court fee stamp on the Order-in-Original.

5. In this case the appellant filed a classification list effective from 15.5.1992 and claimed therein the rate of duty at 25% in respect of their products in view of Notification No. 14/92. The classification list was approved by the competent authority at the rate of 40% in view of notification No. 20/93. The appellant filed appeal against this order before the Collector of Central Excise and along with their appeal papers appellants also filed Order-in-Original dated 13.8.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Appellant by mistake affixed the necessary court fee stamp on the Order-in-original dated 13.8.1991 instead of affixing it on the impugned order. Before the Collector (Appeals) the appellant also made a request to affix the necessary court fee stamp on the order but the same was declined.

6. The Tribunal is taking a consistent view that non-affixing of court fee stamp on the copy of the Order-in-original filed before the Commissioner is a remediable defect and the appeal should not be dismissed on this ground without giving an opportunity to rectify the defect. The Tribunal in the case of Central India Tobacco Products v.Collector of Central Excise , in the caseColfax Labs (I) Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise specifically held that non-affixing of court fee stamp on the Order-in-original is a remedial defect. In view of the above mentioned decisions of the Tribunal the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to make up the deficiency of affixing court fee stamp.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial