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.

Raja Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Raja Industries vs Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 22, 2003
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30650

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
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raja Industries

Respondent

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(157)ELT315Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by raja industries against the order of the deputy commissioner, communicating to the assessee his view that he cannot reconsider the refusal to accept the declaration dated 31-1-1999 filed by the appellant under the kar vivad samadhan scheme, 1998. on our prima facie view that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, we had issued notice to the assessee, while the appeal was dismissed on this ground, the appellant had not replied nor represented.3. the provisions of the kar vivad samadhan scheme, 1998 a declaration filed under which this appeal relates, do not form part of the central excise act, 1944 or the customs act, 1962 or any of the rules made thereunder, deriving their authority from the provisions of the finance act, 1998. there is no provision in that act or the scheme for appeal to this tribunal. we are therefore satisfied that we have no jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the decision of the deputy commissioner.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by Raja Industries against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, communicating to the assessee his view that he cannot reconsider the refusal to accept the declaration dated 31-1-1999 filed by the appellant under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. On our prima facie view that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, we had issued notice to the assessee, while the appeal was dismissed on this ground, the appellant had not replied nor represented.

3. The provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 a declaration filed under which this appeal relates, do not form part of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Customs Act, 1962 or any of the rules made thereunder, deriving their authority from the provisions of the Finance Act, 1998. There is no provision in that Act or the Scheme for appeal to this Tribunal. We are therefore satisfied that we have no jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial