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.

81 Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

81 Electronics vs Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 10, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15773

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
Decided On
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

81 Electronics

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(112)ELT1023Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. on 2-11-1998 the applicant filed application before the designated authority under 'kar vivad samadhan scheme, 1998'. the tribunal sent a notice of hearing in respect of the appeal and intimated the date of hearing as 19-11-1998. on that day neither the appellant nor the advocate for the appellant appeared before the tribunal. hence the tribunal on that day i.e. on 19-11-1998 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of section 129e of the customs act as application was made for extension of time for making deposit of two months and that eight months have passed and no deposit has been made.subsequent to that on 12-3-1999 the authorities under the 'kar vivad samadhan scheme 1998' passed a declaration in terms of section 90(2) of the finance act no. 2 of 1998. the prayer of the applicant is the appeal which was dismissed on 19-11-1998 should be restored to the file and thereafter dismiss it in terms of provisions of section 91 of the finance act no. 2 of 1998. from the narration of the facts it will be very clear that when the application was filed under 'kar vivad samadhan scheme, 1998' the appeal was pending viz. on 2-11-1998. the appeal was dismissed on 19-11-1998. appellant before us had already obtained the benefit of this scheme. under the circumstances we do not find any ground has been made before us to revive the appeal and immediately dismiss the same. hence we feel that the application is devoid of any merits. the application stands dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. On 2-11-1998 the applicant filed application before the designated authority under 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998'. The Tribunal sent a notice of hearing in respect of the appeal and intimated the date of hearing as 19-11-1998. On that day neither the appellant nor the Advocate for the appellant appeared before the Tribunal. Hence the Tribunal on that day i.e. on 19-11-1998 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act as application was made for extension of time for making deposit of two months and that eight months have passed and no deposit has been made.

Subsequent to that on 12-3-1999 the authorities under the 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998' passed a declaration in terms of Section 90(2) of the Finance Act No. 2 of 1998. The prayer of the applicant is the appeal which was dismissed on 19-11-1998 should be restored to the file and thereafter dismiss it in terms of provisions of Section 91 of the Finance Act No. 2 of 1998. From the narration of the facts it will be very clear that when the application was filed under 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998' the appeal was pending viz. on 2-11-1998. The appeal was dismissed on 19-11-1998. Appellant before us had already obtained the benefit of this Scheme. Under the circumstances we do not find any ground has been made before us to revive the appeal and immediately dismiss the same. Hence we feel that the application is devoid of any merits. The application stands dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial