Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/S Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 05, 2001
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25430

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

M/S Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the department seeks condonation of delay of 10 days in filing of the above appeal. the reason given is that there was delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from divisional office/range office and as a result delayed the processing of the file.although, normally, the bench may not have declined to condone the delay considering the period thereof, in the present case, we find that only copies of the impugned order and the order-in-original have been filed and the commissioner's office as well as the divisional office are situated in the same division viz, belapur.2. on an earlier occasion, the delay on the same ground has not been condoned as seen from the orders in the case of commissioner of central excise, mumbai. vii vs. m/s. neelikon food dyes & chemicals ltd. (appeals no. e/1177/01-mum and cce, mumbai. vii vs. m/s.mahalaxmi seamless ltd. (appeal no. e/1333/2001-mum). following the ratio of the above orders on cod applications and appeals, we reject the cod application. the appeal is also thus dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The department seeks condonation of delay of 10 days in filing of the above appeal. The reason given is that there was delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from Divisional office/Range Office and as a result delayed the processing of the file.

Although, normally, the Bench may not have declined to condone the delay considering the period thereof, in the present case, we find that only copies of the impugned order and the Order-in-Original have been filed and the Commissioner's office as well as the Divisional office are situated in the same Division viz, Belapur.

2. On an earlier occasion, the delay on the same ground has not been condoned as seen from the orders in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. VII vs. M/s. Neelikon Food Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. (Appeals No. E/1177/01-Mum and CCE, Mumbai. VII vs. M/s.

Mahalaxmi Seamless Ltd. (Appeal No. E/1333/2001-Mum). Following the ratio of the above orders on COD applications and appeals, we reject the COD application. The appeal is also thus dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial