Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Prophyla Biologicals Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Prophyla Biologicals Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 06, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25475

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/25475
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 06, 2001
Subject: Other Taxes

Case Summary

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

Other Taxes

Key legal issue: Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Prophyla Biologicals Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

1. the revenue seeks condonation of delay of approximately 14 days in preferring the above appeal, the grounds for the delay are explained as delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from divisional office/range office and as a result, delayed the processing of the file. we find that the only papers that have been filed are the adjudication order and the impugned order in appeal. the office of the assistant collector is situated at belapur as well as the office of the commissioner (appeals) and in the same premises, in similar situation in more than on case the tribunal has held that no ground for condonation has been made out. we also note that the authorisation for filing of the appeals states that the appeal has been filed within the statutory period of three months as required under section 35e(1) of the central excise act, 1944, and yet an application for condonation which is necessary is being filed this would show how the mind of the commissioner has been applied to the case. no ground for condonation is made out and we dismiss the cod application, as a result the appeal is dismissed as time barred.

Full Judgment

1. The revenue seeks condonation of delay of approximately 14 days in preferring the above appeal, the grounds for the delay are explained as delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from Divisional Office/Range Office and as a result, delayed the processing of the file. We find that the only papers that have been filed are the adjudication order and the impugned order in appeal. The office of the Assistant Collector is situated at Belapur as well as the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) and in the same premises, In similar situation in more than on case the Tribunal has held that no ground for condonation has been made out. We also note that the authorisation for filing of the appeals states that the appeal has been filed within the statutory period of three months as required under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and yet an application for condonation which is necessary is being filed this would show how the mind of the Commissioner has been applied to the case. No ground for condonation is made out and we dismiss the COD application, as a result the appeal is dismissed as time barred.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Prophyla Biologicals Pvt. ... Same Subject Other Taxes