Cce, Chandigarh Vs. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.

Cce, Chandigarh vs Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 17, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20440

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/20440
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jan 17, 2001
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

Cce, Chandigarh

Respondent

Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.

Excerpt

1. this is an application by the revenue seeking restoration of their appeal which was dismissed as per final order no. a/659/2000-nr(sm) dated 20.4.2000. the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the statement of facts and grounds of appeal had not been furnished along with the appeal papers and, therefore, the appeal was not in accordance with rule 8 of the cegat (procedure) rules, 1982. the order of the bench also made clear that the appellants had the liberty to get the appeal revived after making up the deficiency. the deficiency has since been made up the deficiency. the deficiency has since been made up by the appellants as evidenced by the statement of facts and grounds of appeal (duly verified by the assistant commissioner) having been brought on record as accompaniments of this application. i,therefore, take the documents on record and treat the aforesaid deficiencies as having been made good by the appellants. accordingly, the roa application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number.2. ld. advocate sh. g. ambuwani, representing the respondents, submits that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally at this stage in view of the decision of the tribunal larger bench in the case of avis electronics [2000 (117) elt 571]. he also submits that the respondents are a sick unit and, therefore, cannot afford to meet the expenses of a prolonged litigation. ld. jdr, however, seeks an adjournment so as to be able to get prepared for arguments in the appeal. in the interest of justice, i must heed this prayer. the matter is adjourned to 15.3.2001.it is made clear that this will be a last chance for the revenue.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application by the Revenue seeking restoration of their appeal which was dismissed as per Final Order No. A/659/2000-NR(SM) dated 20.4.2000. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the statement of facts and grounds of appeal had not been furnished along with the appeal papers and, therefore, the appeal was not in accordance with Rule 8 of the CEGAT (procedure) Rules, 1982. The Order of the Bench also made clear that the appellants had the liberty to get the appeal revived after making up the deficiency. The deficiency has since been made up the deficiency. The deficiency has since been made up by the appellants as evidenced by the statement of facts and grounds of appeal (duly verified by the Assistant Commissioner) having been brought on record as accompaniments of this application. I,therefore, take the documents on record and treat the aforesaid deficiencies as having been made good by the appellants. Accordingly, the ROA application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number.

2. Ld. Advocate Sh. G. Ambuwani, representing the respondents, submits that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally at this stage in view of the decision of the Tribunal Larger Bench in the case of Avis Electronics [2000 (117) ELT 571]. He also submits that the respondents are a sick Unit and, therefore, cannot afford to meet the expenses of a prolonged litigation. Ld. JDR, however, seeks an adjournment so as to be able to get prepared for arguments in the appeal. In the interest of justice, I must heed this prayer. The matter is adjourned to 15.3.2001.

It is made clear that this will be a last chance for the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce, Chandigarh vs Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax