Garg Casteels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Garg Casteels Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 31, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17983

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/17983
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J T J.H.
Decided On: Mar 31, 2000
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

Garg Casteels Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(69)ECC648

Excerpt

1. this case was posted for hearing of the stay application but the point of law being settled, the appeal was taken up for hearing on granting waiver of deposit of duty amounting to rs. 67,604 and penalty of rs. 19,500.2. on considering the case of the appellant before him on the stay application, the commissioner (appeals) passed order dated 24.12.98.the appellants deposited rs. 34,000 as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. he did not hear the appellants drawing strength from the gujarat high court judgment in the case of dcw v. cce 1998 (97) elt 424. the appellants did not comply with the order and their appeal was dismissed in terms of section 35f of the central excise act, 1944.hence, the present appeal.international], the tribunal had in such circumstances held that the commissioner was required to give a chance to the assessees to be heard before dismissing the appeal before him. the gujarat high court also in their judgment in the case of ricoh india ltd. in which a reference was made to dcw judgment relied upon by the commissioner in 1999 (34) rlt 231, had stressed the need for granting of personal hearing before disposal of stay application.4. on this short point, the appeal is allowed and the proceedings are remitted back to the commissioner for hearing the assessees afresh both on their stay application and the main appeals. the assessees shall co-operate fully.

Full Judgment

1. This case was posted for hearing of the stay application but the point of law being settled, the appeal was taken up for hearing on granting waiver of deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 67,604 and penalty of Rs. 19,500.

2. On considering the case of the appellant before him on the stay application, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed Order dated 24.12.98.

The appellants deposited Rs. 34,000 as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. He did not hear the appellants drawing strength from the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of DCW v. CCE 1998 (97) ELT 424. The appellants did not comply with the order and their appeal was dismissed in terms of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Hence, the present appeal.

International], the Tribunal had in such circumstances held that the Commissioner was required to give a chance to the assessees to be heard before dismissing the appeal before him. The Gujarat High Court also in their judgment in the case of Ricoh India Ltd. in which a reference was made to DCW judgment relied upon by the Commissioner in 1999 (34) RLT 231, had stressed the need for granting of personal hearing before disposal of stay application.

4. On this short point, the appeal is allowed and the proceedings are remitted back to the Commissioner for hearing the assessees afresh both on their stay application and the main appeals. The assessees shall co-operate fully.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Garg Casteels Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J T J.H.