Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Garg Forging and Casting Pvt.

Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Garg Forging and Casting Pvt.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 29, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23450

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/23450
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: May 29, 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

M/S. Garg Forging and Casting Pvt.

Excerpt

1. shri ashok kumar, jdr submits that in these group of appeals, in which the respondents are m/s. garg forging and casting pvt., the main appeal against the common impugned order dated 30.09.99 was filed in time and the commissioner was under the bonafide belief that as a single no.50/ce/99 has been given by the adjudicating authority, it was sufficient if one appeal was filed against the said common impugned order. when it was pointed out that more appeals were required to be filed, the same have been filed with the application for condonation of delay. he prays that as the main appeal was filed in time, the delay in filling the supplementary appeals be condoned and all the revenue's appeals be heard together.2. ms. anuranjana singh, advocate is present for the respondents. she is representing all the appellants. she has no objection.3. as per practice of the tribunal, the delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.

Full Judgment

1. Shri Ashok Kumar, JDR submits that in these group of appeals, in which the respondents are M/s. Garg Forging and Casting Pvt., the main appeal against the common impugned order dated 30.09.99 was filed in time and the Commissioner was under the bonafide belief that as a single No.50/CE/99 has been given by the adjudicating authority, it was sufficient if one appeal was filed against the said common impugned order. When it was pointed out that more appeals were required to be filed, the same have been filed with the application for condonation of delay. He prays that as the main appeal was filed in time, the delay in filling the supplementary appeals be condoned and all the Revenue's appeals be heard together.

2. Ms. Anuranjana Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents. She is representing all the appellants. She has no objection.

3. As per practice of the Tribunal, the delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Garg Forging and Casting Pvt. Same Subject Service Tax