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.

NelvIn Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

NelvIn Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 14, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27008

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

NelvIn Enterprises

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs and

Excerpt

1. for reasons recorded below we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, stay recovery thereof and proceed to dispose off the appeal itself with consent of both sides as the issue lies within a very narrow compass.2. aggrieved by the confirmation of duty demand by the adjudicating authority the appellants preferred an appeal along with an application for waiver under section 35f of the central excise act before the commissioner (appeals) who directed pre-deposit. the appellant applied for modification of the stay order after the period fixed for pre-deposit had expired. the modification application was disposed off and since the appellant did not comply with the pre-deposit requirement fixed, even after receipt of the order of rejection of modification application, the appeal came to be dismissed without notice to the appellant.3. on hearing both sides and considering the decision of the tribunal in the case of steel authority of india ltd. v. cce 2000 (115) elt 700, we find that the tribunal has held that the modification application dismissed without affording any hearing to the applicants and further dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance under section 35f also without prior notice to the appellant, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, we set aside the order and remand the case to the commissioner (appeals) for decision afresh, first on the application for modification and thereafter for decision on the appeal itself.

Full Judgment

1. For reasons recorded below we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, stay recovery thereof and proceed to dispose off the appeal itself with consent of both sides as the issue lies within a very narrow compass.

2. Aggrieved by the confirmation of duty demand by the adjudicating authority the appellants preferred an appeal along with an application for waiver under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act before the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed pre-deposit. The appellant applied for modification of the stay order after the period fixed for pre-deposit had expired. The modification application was disposed off and since the appellant did not comply with the pre-deposit requirement fixed, even after receipt of the order of rejection of modification application, the appeal came to be dismissed without notice to the appellant.

3. On hearing both sides and considering the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (115) ELT 700, we find that the Tribunal has held that the modification application dismissed without affording any hearing to the applicants and further dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance under Section 35F also without prior notice to the appellant, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, we set aside the order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision afresh, first on the application for modification and thereafter for decision on the appeal itself.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial