Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sutex Yarn Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sutex Yarn Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 28, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32011

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/32011
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T C.
Decided On: Aug 28, 2003
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Sutex Yarn Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(161)ELT1043Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. none appeared for the respondents despite notice and adjournment granted earlier. shri s.v. parelkar, learned jdr appearing for the revenue states that the impugned order has been decided by shri m.c.kaul, commissioner (appeals) without having jurisdiction to decide the same. in support of his contention, he has submitted a copy of board's order no. 390/3/36-jc (bmb), dated 31st december, 1997.2. after hearing learned jdr and perusal of case records, i find that the impugned order has been passed on 5-1-1999 by the commissioner (appeals). since the impugned order has been passed subsequent to the order allocating work among different commissioners of appeals, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. as such, the same is set aside and remanded to the jurisdictional commissioner (appeals) to decide the case afresh.

Full Judgment

1. None appeared for the respondents despite notice and adjournment granted earlier. Shri S.V. Parelkar, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue states that the impugned order has been decided by Shri M.C.Kaul, Commissioner (Appeals) without having jurisdiction to decide the same. In support of his contention, he has submitted a copy of Board's Order No. 390/3/36-JC (BMB), dated 31st December, 1997.

2. After hearing learned JDR and perusal of case records, I find that the impugned order has been passed on 5-1-1999 by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the impugned order has been passed subsequent to the order allocating work among different Commissioners of appeals, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. As such, the same is set aside and remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case afresh.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sutex Yarn Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T C.