themis Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

themis Agencies vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 25, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23367

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/23367
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 25, 2001
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

themis Agencies

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

.....appeal was against the order of the assistant commissioner dismissing the claim for refund of modvat credit. by mistake, a common appeal had been filed against this order of the commissioner (appeals) instead of filing two appeals, one relating to the demand and the other relating to refund.4. however, on verification this is not found to be the case. this appeal presently before me is identically worded except for such matters as the date of signing of the appeal, verification, etc., as the earlier appeal. both of the appeals refer in the statement of facts the show cause notice demanding duty of rs. 4,59,410/-. there is not a word in both appeals relating to any refund. the entire statement of facts and therefore the grounds of appeal refer only of that show cause notice. therefore this appeal is merely a repetition of the earlier appeal no. e/3950/99 being field once again. the contention of the representative of the applicant that there was an intention to file an appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals) relating to the refund claim in this context is meaningless. the tribunal, like any other forum, is not concerned with intention but the documents that have been filed before it and what is evident form the documents before it and not what are the intentions. permission to make proper changes in the appeal, asked by the representative, in effect amounts to substituting another appeal for the present appeal and hence obviously cannot be granted.5. in the result the appeal before me to be returned to the appellant on the ground an identical appeal has already been filed. the stay application also should therefore be returned to the appellants.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for condonation of delay of 146 days in filing of this appeal.

2. However, on considering the matter it turns out that the question of any delay in filing this appeal does not arise for the following reasons.

3. This appeal and an earlier appeal No. E/3950/99 form the same appellant are against a common order dated 30.8.1999 of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of two appeals before him.

Representative of the applicant contends that one of the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) was against the order of the Assistant Commissioner adjudicating on a show cause notice issued to the assessee denying modvat credit. The other appeal was against the order of the Assistant Commissioner dismissing the claim for refund of modvat credit. By mistake, a common appeal had been filed against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of filing two appeals, one relating to the demand and the other relating to refund.

4. However, on verification this is not found to be the case. This appeal presently before me is identically worded except for such matters as the date of signing of the appeal, verification, etc., as the earlier appeal. Both of the appeals refer in the statement of facts the show cause notice demanding duty of Rs. 4,59,410/-. There is not a word in both appeals relating to any refund. The entire statement of facts and therefore the grounds of appeal refer only of that show cause notice. Therefore this appeal is merely a repetition of the earlier appeal No. E/3950/99 being field once again. The contention of the representative of the applicant that there was an intention to file an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the refund claim in this context is meaningless. The Tribunal, like any other forum, is not concerned with intention but the documents that have been filed before it and what is evident form the documents before it and not what are the intentions. Permission to make proper changes in the appeal, asked by the representative, in effect amounts to substituting another appeal for the present appeal and hence obviously cannot be granted.

5. In the result the appeal before me to be returned to the appellant on the ground an identical appeal has already been filed. The stay application also should therefore be returned to the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties themis Agencies vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition