Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Eisen Pharmaceuticals

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Eisen Pharmaceuticals

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 27, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19865

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/19865
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, J S Murthy
Decided On: Nov 27, 2000
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Eisen Pharmaceuticals

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(73)ECC716

Excerpt

1. there is no response to the notice issued to the commissioner (with a copy to the departmental representative) to produce copies of the order-in-original and order-in-appeal. the department representative seeks one more opportunity for reasons which he is unable to explain to us. if the commissioner and the departmental representative chose not to act upon the notice of the registry, we do not see how any number of opportunities will help. this is already the second opportunity provided for filing the appeal complete with enclosures (the first being when the appeal itself was filed).2. the notice to the commissioner advised him that since only one appeal had been filed against the order disposing of an appeal against three respondents the appeal will be treated as an appeal against the order in the appeal of m/s. eisen pharmaceuticals. thus there is only one appeal and that appeal is dismissed under rule 11a of the (cegat) procedure rules.

Full Judgment

1. There is no response to the notice issued to the Commissioner (with a copy to the departmental representative) to produce copies of the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. The department representative seeks one more opportunity for reasons which he is unable to explain to us. If the Commissioner and the departmental representative chose not to act upon the notice of the registry, we do not see how any number of opportunities will help. This is already the second opportunity provided for filing the appeal complete with enclosures (the first being when the appeal itself was filed).

2. The notice to the Commissioner advised him that since only one appeal had been filed against the order disposing of an appeal against three respondents the appeal will be treated as an appeal against the order in the appeal of M/s. Eisen Pharmaceuticals. Thus there is only one appeal and that appeal is dismissed Under Rule 11A of the (CEGAT) Procedure Rules.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Eisen Pharmaceuticals Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S T Gowri, J S Murthy