Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Associated Intermediates and

Commr. of C. Ex. vs Associated Intermediates and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 05, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18605

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/18605
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jul 05, 2000
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commr. of C. Ex.

Respondent

Associated Intermediates and

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(122)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. in this appeal a show cause notice was given calling upon the appellant commissioner of central excise ahmedabad, as to why appeal filed by him should not be dismissed as the appeal was not verified and signed properly.2. departmental representative shri u.v. gaitonde represents that he has not received any instructions. in terms of rule 8(3) of the cegat (procedure) rules, any application or appeal should be signed by the appellant. in this case appeal was not signed by anybody but, a verification has been signed by the deputy commissioner one shri sunil jain dated 9-2-2000. it is true that grounds of appeal has been signed by commissioner on 31-1-2000 which has been enclosed with the authorisation. if the authorisation has been made in favour of some central excise officer, there is no necessity for the commissioner to sign the grounds of appeal. it is therefore incumbent on the appellant namely the dy. commissioner, who has filed the appeal under the directions of the commissioner to sign the appeal. in this appeal that authorised representative have not signed the appeal. hence same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal a show cause notice was given calling upon the appellant Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad, as to why appeal filed by him should not be dismissed as the appeal was not verified and signed properly.

2. Departmental Representative Shri U.V. Gaitonde represents that he has not received any instructions. In terms of Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, any application or appeal should be signed by the appellant. In this case appeal was not signed by anybody but, a verification has been signed by the Deputy Commissioner one Shri Sunil Jain dated 9-2-2000. It is true that grounds of appeal has been signed by Commissioner on 31-1-2000 which has been enclosed with the authorisation. If the authorisation has been made in favour of some Central Excise officer, there is no necessity for the Commissioner to sign the grounds of appeal. It is therefore incumbent on the appellant namely the Dy. Commissioner, who has filed the appeal under the directions of the Commissioner to sign the appeal. In this appeal that authorised representative have not signed the appeal. Hence same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commr. of C. Ex. vs Associated Intermediates and Same Subject Excise