Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Catchem

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Catchem

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 28, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25989

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/25989
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 28, 2001
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

Catchem

Excerpt

1. the revenue has filed the above the appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals), who has accepted that the correct date of the invoice is 7.7.94 and not 5.7.94 as shown on the invoice. the commissioner (appeals) has gone through the record and found that the supplier had produced a letter dt. 3.1.95 to the assistant commissioner about the date of clearance and he has also noticed that the assistant commissioner whose order is now sought to be restored by the department had not given any reason for denying or rejecting the appellants plea that while typing the date of invoice, they typed 5.7.94 instead of 7.7.94. which is the correct date.2. no question of law arises and amount of duty is also very negligence there is nothing in the appeal memorandum to show that the correct date is 5.7.94 and therefore the commissioner has erred in accepting the date as 7.7.94. no purpose will be served by admitting the appeal.therefore i decline to admit this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue has filed the above the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has accepted that the correct date of the invoice is 7.7.94 and not 5.7.94 as shown on the invoice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone through the record and found that the supplier had produced a letter dt. 3.1.95 to the Assistant Commissioner about the date of clearance and he has also noticed that the Assistant Commissioner whose order is now sought to be restored by the department had not given any reason for denying or rejecting the appellants plea that while typing the date of Invoice, they typed 5.7.94 instead of 7.7.94. which is the correct date.

2. No question of law arises and amount of duty is also very negligence there is nothing in the appeal memorandum to show that the correct date is 5.7.94 and therefore the Commissioner has erred in accepting the date as 7.7.94. No purpose will be served by admitting the appeal.

Therefore I decline to admit this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

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