D'Mello and Co. Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise

D'Mello and Co. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 22, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/30651

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/30651
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, G Srinivasan
Decided On: Apr 22, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D'Mello and Co.

Respondent

Commissioner Of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(162)ELT1043Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

2. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) on the classification of fibre glass sleevings that the appellant manufactured. the commissioner has found that the appellant did not appear before him the date on which the hearing was fixed and he dismissed the appeal (except for releasing the penalty) because the appellant has not controverted the findings in the stay order.3. it does not need any great explanation or authority to say that the stay order of the commissioner (appeals) did not finally determine any issue. the opinion recorded in it has necessarily to be prima facie. if it was not so, any authority that passes stay order would be restrained from hearing the matter finally because it has already expressed a final opinion on the issue. the commissioner (appeals) therefore fallen into error by dismissing the appeal only on the ground that his finding in his stay order has not been challenged. his order does not deal with the merits at all. it is therefore totally a non speaking order and has to be set aside.4. the appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.the commissioner (appeals) shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the classification of fibre glass sleevings that the appellant manufactured. The Commissioner has found that the appellant did not appear before him the date on which the hearing was fixed and he dismissed the appeal (except for releasing the penalty) because the appellant has not controverted the findings in the stay order.

3. It does not need any great explanation or authority to say that the stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals) did not finally determine any issue. The opinion recorded in it has necessarily to be prima facie. If it was not so, any authority that passes stay order would be restrained from hearing the matter finally because it has already expressed a final opinion on the issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore fallen into error by dismissing the appeal only on the ground that his finding in his stay order has not been challenged. His order does not deal with the merits at all. It is therefore totally a non speaking order and has to be set aside.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.

The Commissioner (Appeals) shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties D'Mello and Co. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T Gowri, G Srinivasan

Excise In accordance with law Speaking order prima facie dispose of Stay order set aside