Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Mahavir Strips Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
| Jun-26-2001 |
| Cce, Chandigarh |
| M/S. Mahavir Strips Pvt. Ltd. |
1. the revenue seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the commissioner of central excise (appeals) who has held that the demand of rs. 14,62,650/- is barred by limitation, and has also set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. the ground for stay is that the commissioner (appeals) has applied the decision of the tribunal in the case of m/s jagan tubes and others vs cce ( final order no. 481-486/2000-b dated 31.3.2000, without noticing the distinguishing feature between the case and the present one namely m/s jagan tubes and others were registered with the central excise authorities, while the assessee in this appeal was not even registered with the central excise department and the present case is one of suppression.2. notice issued to the respondent has been returned with the postal remarks "factory closed"; hence we heard the learned dr and perused the record.3. no prime-facie case for stay has been made out because there is no recurring effect, we therefore, dismiss the stay application. however, since the issue involved lies within a very narrow compass, we fix the appeal itself for hearing on 23.7.2001.
1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has held that the demand of Rs. 14,62,650/- is barred by limitation, and has also set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The ground for stay is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Jagan Tubes and Others Vs CCE ( final order No. 481-486/2000-B dated 31.3.2000, without noticing the distinguishing feature between the case and the present one namely M/s Jagan Tubes and Others were registered with the Central Excise Authorities, while the assessee in this appeal was not even registered with the Central Excise department and the present case is one of suppression.
2. Notice issued to the respondent has been returned with the postal remarks "factory closed"; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the record.
3. No prime-facie case for stay has been made out because there is no recurring effect, we therefore, dismiss the stay application. However, since the issue involved lies within a very narrow compass, we fix the appeal itself for hearing on 23.7.2001.