Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Oswal Overseas

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S. Oswal Overseas

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 18, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23151

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
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

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

M/S. Oswal Overseas

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(132)ELT232TriDel

Excerpt

1. according to the ld. sdr, the tribunal has erred in relying upon the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of shiv chander kapoor vs. amar bose reported in 1990 (1) supreme court cases 234, in holding that the demand of duty connot be enforced against the appellants. since the larger bench of the tribunal has distinguished the above judgement of the apex court vide its judgement in the case of m/s. wilson and company vs. cce, madras 2. on hearing both the sides, we see no substance in the contention of the revenue in view of the judgement of the hon'ble delhi high court in the case of deeksha suri vs. itat [1998 (102)elt524 (del) in the case of deeksha suri cited (supra), the hon'ble delhi high court has held that merely because the tribunal overlooked its own order while deciding an appeal finally, it will not render a judgement void or a nullity and such an order cannot be recalled (para 33 of the high court order). further in the case of ester industries ltd. vs.cce, meerut [1998 (97)elt 535(tribunal)], the tribunal has dismissed the rom application filed on the ground that on similar issue the tribunal had taken a different view in another case ut that case was not cited before the bench. following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that there is no error apparent from the face of the record and accordingly reject the rom application.

Full Judgment

1. According to the ld. SDR, the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Chander Kapoor vs. Amar Bose reported in 1990 (1) Supreme court Cases 234, in holding that the demand of duty connot be enforced against the appellants. Since the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has distinguished the above judgement of the Apex Court vide its judgement in the case of M/s. Wilson And Company vs. CCE, Madras 2. On hearing both the sides, we see no substance in the contention of the Revenue in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT [1998 (102)ELT524 (Del) in the case of Deeksha Suri cited (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that merely because the Tribunal overlooked its own order while deciding an appeal finally, it will not render a judgement void or a nullity and such an order cannot be recalled (para 33 of the High Court Order). Further in the case of Ester Industries Ltd. vs.CCE, Meerut [1998 (97)ELT 535(Tribunal)], the Tribunal has dismissed the ROM application filed on the ground that on similar issue the Tribunal had taken a different view in another case ut that case was not cited before the Bench. Following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that there is no error apparent from the face of the record and accordingly reject the ROM application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial