Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Luna Engineering Works

Commissioner of Central Excise and vs Luna Engineering Works

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 04, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22846

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/22846
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 04, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise and

Respondent

Luna Engineering Works

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(137)ELT480Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the department's appeal was dismissed on the ground that a document in hindi, stated to be the authorisation of the commissioner, what was filed with the appeal was a photocopy containing the initials of the commissioner, unsigned by him. the application now seeks restoration on the ground that although such authorisation was not produced, the commissioner had authorised the appeal.2. the departmental representative is unable to explain how, in the absence of a valid authorisation, the tribunal is to conclude that the commissioner had authorised the appeal. the fact emphasised by him, that the application for restoration is signed by the commissioner who was the successor in office to the commissioner who, it is claimed, initially signed the authorisation, does not confer sanctity upon the earlier document that it otherwise did not possess.

Full Judgment

1. The department's appeal was dismissed on the ground that a document in Hindi, stated to be the authorisation of the Commissioner, what was filed with the appeal was a photocopy containing the initials of the Commissioner, unsigned by him. The application now seeks restoration on the ground that although such authorisation was not produced, the Commissioner had authorised the appeal.

2. The departmental representative is unable to explain how, in the absence of a valid authorisation, the Tribunal is to conclude that the Commissioner had authorised the appeal. The fact emphasised by him, that the application for restoration is signed by the Commissioner who was the successor in office to the Commissioner who, it is claimed, initially signed the authorisation, does not confer sanctity upon the earlier document that it otherwise did not possess.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise and vs Luna Engineering Works Same Subject Excise