Ruttonsha Internil Rectifier Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Ruttonsha Internil Rectifier vs Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 12, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29322

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/29322
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Nov 12, 2002
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ruttonsha Internil Rectifier

Respondent

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(160)ELT947Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. when this petition for stay came up for hearing it has been agreed that the appeal itself can be disposed of. we, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. the contention raised by the appellant is that no notice could be issued beyond the period of six months without referring to any special reason for that and the show cause notice is not liable to be accepted as it is time barred. admittedly, the appellant has not filed return.if that be so, under section 73 proceedings can be initiated for a period beyond six months.the only other issue to be considered is how the quantification has to be made. the appellant has produced certain documents before this tribunal at the time of hearing. we do not propose to go in to the issue of quantification. it is open to the appellant to produce all documents before the original authority who will examine the same and pass order regarding quantification of the tax liability. the appeal stands disposed of as above.

Full Judgment

1. When this petition for stay came up for hearing it has been agreed that the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal.

2. The contention raised by the appellant is that no notice could be issued beyond the period of six months without referring to any special reason for that and the show cause notice is not liable to be accepted as it is time barred. Admittedly, the appellant has not filed return.

If that be so, under Section 73 proceedings can be initiated for a period beyond six months.

The only other issue to be considered is how the quantification has to be made. The appellant has produced certain documents before this Tribunal at the time of hearing. We do not propose to go in to the issue of quantification. It is open to the appellant to produce all documents before the original authority who will examine the same and pass order regarding quantification of the tax liability. The appeal stands disposed of as above.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Ruttonsha Internil Rectifier vs Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Same Subject Customs Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.