Ablaze Process System (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Ablaze Process System (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 13, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/21421

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/21421
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, P Bajaj
Decided On: Mar 13, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ablaze Process System (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise and

Excerpt

1. restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 12.12.1997 by the tribunal on the ground that deposit of rs. 11 lakhs which was ordered had not been made, is prayed for in this application.counsel for the applicant contends that, subsequent to the order, the department has seized plant and other goods belonging to it, of the value of rs. 8.5 lakhs. therefore, there has been substantial compliance with the stay order. he also contends that the question involved in the appeal, classification of laboratory glassware, has also since been settled.2. we are unable to accept either of these contentions. acceptance of them, in effect, would mean that the appeal of any person would have to be restored after sufficient passage of time. in every case that the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance, with the stay order the department resorts to recovery of dues sooner or later. all disputes which give rise to appeals are settled in due course. accepting these contentions would result in nullifying the provisions of section 35f of the act.

Full Judgment

1. Restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 12.12.1997 by the Tribunal on the ground that deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs which was ordered had not been made, is prayed for in this application.

Counsel for the applicant contends that, subsequent to the order, the department has seized plant and other goods belonging to it, of the value of Rs. 8.5 lakhs. Therefore, there has been substantial compliance with the stay order. He also contends that the question involved in the appeal, classification of laboratory glassware, has also since been settled.

2. We are unable to accept either of these contentions. Acceptance of them, in effect, would mean that the appeal of any person would have to be restored after sufficient passage of time. In every case that the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance, with the stay order the department resorts to recovery of dues sooner or later. All disputes which give rise to appeals are settled in due course. Accepting these contentions would result in nullifying the provisions of Section 35F of the Act.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Ablaze Process System (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Exc... Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T Gowri, P Bajaj