Kurlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Kurlon Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 01, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24788

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/24788
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 01, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kurlon Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the application is for restoration of the order of the tribunal passed on 25.2.1999 dismissing the appeal on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of section 35f of the act. the tribunal found that it has not been shown that any application has been made for waiver of deposit of the penalty amount, which the applicant has not deposited.2. the counsel for the applicant accepts to day that the amount in question has still not been paid. she also accepts that no stay application has been filed. she contended strongly for some time that the amount could not be paid on account of financial hardship, but when the tribunal indicated what its decision are going to be, that it would pay the amount. this itself shows insincerity of the claim of financial hardship. we therefore find no cause for restoring the appeal and dismiss the application.

Full Judgment

1. The application is for restoration of the order of the Tribunal passed on 25.2.1999 dismissing the appeal on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. The Tribunal found that it has not been shown that any application has been made for waiver of deposit of the penalty amount, which the applicant has not deposited.

2. The counsel for the applicant accepts to day that the amount in question has still not been paid. She also accepts that no stay application has been filed. She contended strongly for some time that the amount could not be paid on account of financial hardship, but when the Tribunal indicated what its decision are going to be, that it would pay the amount. This itself shows insincerity of the claim of financial hardship. We therefore find no cause for restoring the appeal and dismiss the application.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Kurlon Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Excise