Cc Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co.

Cc vs Dilip Kumar and Co.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 08, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27792

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/27792
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Mar 08, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Respondent

Dilip Kumar and Co.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(82)ECC210

Excerpt

2. revenue filed this appeal with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. revenue filed a list of dates explaining the delay. the list of dates, from the receipt of the order i.e. from 29.8.2001 to 8.1.2002, the date on which the appeal was filed, only show the movement of file from one officer to another officer of the revenue department. the hon'ble supreme court in the case of union of india v. tata yodogawa limited 1988 (38) elt 739 (sc) held that delay due to inter-departmental correspondence and processing is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filling the appeal under section 35-c of the central excise act.3. in view of the above decision of the hon'ble supreme court, we find no merit in the application and the same is rejected. consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. Revenue filed this appeal with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Revenue filed a list of dates explaining the delay. The list of dates, from the receipt of the order i.e. from 29.8.2001 to 8.1.2002, the date on which the appeal was filed, only show the movement of file from one officer to another officer of the revenue department. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa limited 1988 (38) ELT 739 (SC) held that delay due to inter-departmental correspondence and processing is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filling the appeal under Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act.

3. In view of the above decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no merit in the application and the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cc vs Dilip Kumar and Co. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.