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. Ram Electricals

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ram Electricals

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 02, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28474

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
Judge
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

Ram Electricals

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(146)ELT149Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. in its order passed on 11-5-2002, the tribunal had noted that, despite number of adjournments being given, the applicant had not substantiated the contention raised by it that it had settled the matter under the kar vivad samadhan scheme. the tribunal therefore proceeded to dismiss the appeal by passing a reasoned order.2. the application by the commissioner now seeks to contend that this order cannot be maintained since the assessee had settled the issue under the kar vivad samadhan scheme. the copy of the certificate of the competent authority for full and final settlement of the dues under that scheme is produced.3. we are not able to perceive any mistake in the order of the tribunal. the tribunal had specifically noted that evidence in the form of a certificate for full and final settlement of the dues under the scheme has not been produced. if the appellant before it failed to produce evidence despite having been given sufficient opportunity, the decision of the tribunal in deciding the appeal cannot be said to be a mistake. it is also to be noted that the departmental representative at no stage said that the matter has been settled under the kar vivad samadhan scheme.

Full Judgment

1. In its order passed on 11-5-2002, the Tribunal had noted that, despite number of adjournments being given, the applicant had not substantiated the contention raised by it that it had settled the matter under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The Tribunal therefore proceeded to dismiss the appeal by passing a reasoned order.

2. The application by the Commissioner now seeks to contend that this order cannot be maintained since the assessee had settled the issue under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The copy of the certificate of the competent authority for full and final settlement of the dues under that scheme is produced.

3. We are not able to perceive any mistake in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had specifically noted that evidence in the form of a certificate for full and final settlement of the dues under the scheme has not been produced. If the appellant before it failed to produce evidence despite having been given sufficient opportunity, the decision of the Tribunal in deciding the appeal cannot be said to be a mistake. It is also to be noted that the departmental representative at no stage said that the matter has been settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial