Jindal Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Jindal Alloys vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 23, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16827

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/16827
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Sep 23, 1999
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jindal Alloys

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(115)ELT518TriDel

Excerpt

.....it was not an appealable order, then the question of filing appeal against this order did not arise. he submits that the appeal filed clearly shows that the applicant is contradicting himself.he submits that the subsequent communications were not filed by the applicant to the authorities and it cannot give them the benefit of time. he submits that the order passed by the ld. commissioner was self-contained speaking order. the point raised by the applicant was fully answered in the order passed by the ld. commissioner. he, therefore, submits that since the appeal was filed much beyond the period of three months from the date of communication of the order passed by the ld. commissioner and the applicant has not satisfactorily explained the delay. therefore, the application for condonation of delay may be rejected.3. we have heard the rival submissions. we find that on receipt of the order of the ld. commissioner, the applicant initiated and took up the matter with the commissioner for considering their request for changing the date of implementation of the revised capacity or for passing a speaking order. we find that this request was repeated by sending further communication until reply was sent to the applicant only on 24-8-1998 and the applicant had filed the appeal on 15-9-1998. looking into these facts, we hold that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay. under such circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. the appeal should come up for hearing on 22-10-1999.

Full Judgment

1. Shri R.P. Singh, ld. Consultant submits that the Commissioner's order fixing the changed capacity of production was dated 20-3-1993 which was received by the applicant on 28-3-1993. He submits that this communication was not a speaking order. In support of his contention, he cites and relies upon a number of decisions of this Tribunal, particularly the decision in the case of Shalimar Industries Ltd. v.C.C.E. reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 481 (Tribunal) and in the case of Incab Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Patna reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 711 (Tribunal). He also places reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of IDL Chemicals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bhubaneswar reported in 1997 (19) RLT 658 (CEGAT-EZB). He submits that since the appellants were of the view that the order passed by the ld. Commissioner was not a speaking order and entered into correspondence with the ld.Commissioner requesting him to pass a speaking order. He submits that after several reminders, only on 24-8-1998, the ld. Asstt. Commissioner (Technical) informed the appellants that if they were not satisfied with the order of the ld. Commissioner, they may file an appeal. Ld.

Consultant submits that on receipt of this letter, the appeal was filed on 15-8-1998, which is within 30 days from the date of receipt of the communication i.e., on or after 24-8-1998. Ld. Consultant therefore, prays that in view of the circumstances of this case, especially when they were in correspondence with the ld. Commissioner for passing a speaking order, the delay if any, may be condoned though according to them, there was no delay.

2. Countering the request for condonation of delay or counting the period from the date of receipt of this communication of the Asstt.

Commissioner, Shri S. Srivastava, ld. JDR submits that the plea of the appellants that the order dated 20-3-1998 passed by the ld.Commissioner was not a speaking order and was not appealable order. He submits that in case, it was not an appealable order, then the question of filing appeal against this order did not arise. He submits that the appeal filed clearly shows that the applicant is contradicting himself.

He submits that the subsequent communications were not filed by the applicant to the authorities and it cannot give them the benefit of time. He submits that the order passed by the ld. Commissioner was self-contained speaking order. The point raised by the applicant was fully answered in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner. He, therefore, submits that since the appeal was filed much beyond the period of three months from the date of communication of the order passed by the ld. Commissioner and the applicant has not satisfactorily explained the delay. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay may be rejected.

3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that on receipt of the order of the ld. Commissioner, the applicant initiated and took up the matter with the Commissioner for considering their request for changing the date of implementation of the revised capacity or for passing a speaking order. We find that this request was repeated by sending further communication until reply was sent to the applicant only on 24-8-1998 and the applicant had filed the appeal on 15-9-1998. Looking into these facts, we hold that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay. Under such circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Appeal should come up for hearing on 22-10-1999.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Jindal Alloys vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition