Simplex Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Simplex Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 17, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25058

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/25058
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 17, 2001
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Simplex Enterprises

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(150)ELT1026Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. on 9.8.2001, counsel for the appellant asked for a week's time to comply with the tribunal's stay order. the matter was accordingly adjourned to today.2. counsel tells us now that the applicant needs another six weeks to furnish the bank guarantee. the tribunal's stay order requiring the bank guarantee was passed in october, 1995. an application for modification of this order was rejected by the order passed in 1996, but a period of two months from that day was provided for furnishing the bank guarantee.3. the counsel for the applicant is not able to explain why, despite the passage of five years, the applicant has not filed bank guarantee.if the applicant did not find it possible to file the bank guarantee within five years, it is not possible to believe that it would furnish the bank guarantee within six weeks; no reason in any case has been advanced that would make us believe that the guarantee will be filed in six months. considering this, as also the fact that the counsel undertook on 9.8.2001 to file bank guarantee within a week, we are not in a position to accept the prayer for extension.

Full Judgment

1. On 9.8.2001, counsel for the appellant asked for a week's time to comply with the Tribunal's stay order. The matter was accordingly adjourned to today.

2. Counsel tells us now that the applicant needs another six weeks to furnish the bank guarantee. The Tribunal's stay order requiring the bank guarantee was passed in October, 1995. An application for modification of this order was rejected by the order passed in 1996, but a period of two months from that day was provided for furnishing the bank guarantee.

3. The counsel for the applicant is not able to explain why, despite the passage of five years, the applicant has not filed bank guarantee.

If the applicant did not find it possible to file the bank guarantee within five years, it is not possible to believe that it would furnish the bank guarantee within six weeks; no reason in any case has been advanced that would make us believe that the guarantee will be filed in six months. considering this, as also the fact that the counsel undertook on 9.8.2001 to file bank guarantee within a week, we are not in a position to accept the prayer for extension.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Simplex Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject MRTP