Spinfed Spinning Unit Vs. Cce

Spinfed Spinning Unit vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 21, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19182

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/19182
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Sreedharan, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Sep 21, 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

Spinfed Spinning Unit

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(72)ECC112

Excerpt

1. the appeal of the assessee was rejected by the commissioner (appeals) for the reason of failure to make pre-deposit of the amount ordered to be deposited. the appellant's submission is that the amount had been deposited under tr 6 challan and there was a slip in not reporting the same to the commissioner. accordingly, they seek restoration of the appeal before the commissioner.2. in the facts of this case, the appeal got dismissed only on account of the failure of the appellant to report compliance, even as they had complied with the order. therefore, it is appropriate that the matter be taken back on record by the commissioner and the appeal disposed of on merits. accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the commissioner is directed to take the appeal on record at its original number and to dispose it of on merits.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal of the assessee was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the reason of failure to make pre-deposit of the amount ordered to be deposited. The appellant's submission is that the amount had been deposited under TR 6 challan and there was a slip in not reporting the same to the Commissioner. Accordingly, they seek restoration of the appeal before the Commissioner.

2. In the facts of this case, the appeal got dismissed only on account of the failure of the appellant to report compliance, even as they had complied with the order. Therefore, it is appropriate that the matter be taken back on record by the Commissioner and the appeal disposed of on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the Commissioner is directed to take the appeal on record at its original number and to dispose it of on merits.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Spinfed Spinning Unit vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Sreedharan, N T C.N.B.