Modistone Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Modistone Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 03, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24821

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/24821
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 03, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Modistone Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

2. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner confirming the demand for customs duty on goods imported by the appellant, on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 was not available.3. the appellant is absent and unrepresented. it is contended in the memorandum of appeal that on account of lock-out in the factory the notice was not received and therefore reply could not be filed. it is further contended that the modvat credit which was availed of with regard to the export products (the reason advanced by the commissioner for the denial of notification) has been reversed. in these circumstances we think one more opportunity should be given to the appellant to present its case.4. the appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.the commissioner shall adjudicate on the notice, in accordance with law, after considering the submissions of the appellant.

Full Judgment

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for customs duty on goods imported by the appellant, on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 was not available.

3. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. It is contended in the memorandum of appeal that on account of lock-out in the factory the notice was not received and therefore reply could not be filed. It is further contended that the modvat credit which was availed of with regard to the export products (the reason advanced by the Commissioner for the denial of notification) has been reversed. In these circumstances we think one more opportunity should be given to the appellant to present its case.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.

The Commissioner shall adjudicate on the notice, in accordance with law, after considering the submissions of the appellant.

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