A.P. Khandaria and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

A.P. Khandaria and Others vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 12, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23745

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/23745
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jun 12, 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

A.P. Khandaria and Others

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. by our order dt. 23.4.2001 order no. c-i/1345/wzb/2001-mum certified on 1.5.2001 we have dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground that modification of the tribunal's order dt. 6.2.1996 does not stand. in the said order it has also been mentioned and found that opportunity had been given to the appellant to represent its case. the application itself did not make any grounds for modifications of the order. the applicants did not choose to come and explain its case therefore the application was dismissed and it was also ordered that case would be posted on 12.6.2001.2. today when the cases were taken up and application has been filed hearing dt. 6.6.2001 that company is not financially sound enough to make the payment and due to the death of the one of the director shri a.p. khandaria and ill health of b.p. khandheria. the hearing is not being attended as a prayer has also been made to the effect that due to the ill health of b.p. khanderia huge loss of incurred. it is also stated in the application that the applicant is under the treatment of one dr. hiren kothari therefore he requires adjournment of the hearing.3. we have considered the request. the appeal is of 1996, there is no evidence available on the filed about payment of the duty and the penalty. we are therefore of the view that as no evidence of financial stringency has been produced at any time therefore appeal deserves to be dismissed. the financial hardship has not been shown to our satisfaction. both appeals are therefore dismissed for non compliance of section 35f of the central excise act. appeals are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. By our order dt. 23.4.2001 Order No. C-I/1345/WZB/2001-Mum certified on 1.5.2001 we have dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground that modification of the Tribunal's order dt. 6.2.1996 does not stand. In the said order it has also been mentioned and found that opportunity had been given to the appellant to represent its case. The application itself did not make any grounds for modifications of the order. The applicants did not choose to come and explain its case therefore the application was dismissed and it was also ordered that case would be posted on 12.6.2001.

2. Today when the cases were taken up and application has been filed hearing dt. 6.6.2001 that Company is not financially sound enough to make the payment and due to the death of the one of the director Shri A.P. Khandaria and ill health of B.P. Khandheria. The hearing is not being attended as a prayer has also been made to the effect that due to the ill health of B.P. Khanderia huge loss of incurred. It is also stated in the application that the applicant is under the treatment of one Dr. Hiren Kothari therefore he requires adjournment of the hearing.

3. We have considered the request. The appeal is of 1996, there is no evidence available on the filed about payment of the duty and the penalty. We are therefore of the view that as no evidence of financial stringency has been produced at any time therefore appeal deserves to be dismissed. The financial hardship has not been shown to our satisfaction. Both appeals are therefore dismissed for non compliance of section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Appeals are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties A.P. Khandaria and Others vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Service Tax