AlmIn Extrusion Vs. Cce

AlmIn Extrusion vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 19, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28555

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/28555
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, S T C.
Decided On: Jul 19, 2002
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

AlmIn Extrusion

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(83)ECC496

Excerpt

1. this is an application for rectification of mistake filed under section 35c(2) of central excise act, 1944. neither the applicant nor its representative is present.2. the application has been filed on 28.5.2002 for rectifying an alleged mistake in an order dated 29,6.1999. since the application is being filed after the amendment to section 35c(2) has come into force reducing the period to 6 months, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. apart from the above, we find that there is no merit in the allegation in the application that the order is vitiated by an error apparent on record. what is sought in this application is a reconsideration of the order on merits. it is not permissible under section 35-c(2). we dismiss the application for the above reasons.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application for rectification of mistake filed under Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Neither the applicant nor its representative is present.

2. The application has been filed on 28.5.2002 for rectifying an alleged mistake in an order dated 29,6.1999. Since the application is being filed after the amendment to Section 35C(2) has come into force reducing the period to 6 months, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Apart from the above, we find that there is no merit in the allegation in the application that the order is vitiated by an error apparent on record. What is sought in this application is a reconsideration of the order on merits. It is not permissible under Section 35-C(2). We dismiss the application for the above reasons.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties AlmIn Extrusion vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Usha, S T C.