Modern Threads (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Modern Threads (i) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 08, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33331

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/33331
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: M T K.D.
Decided On: Dec 08, 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

Modern Threads (i) Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(163)ELT435TriDel

Excerpt

2. this is a request for condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the appeal against the order-in-appeal. the ld. counsel pleads that, the copy of the impugned order was delivered to the security personnel of the factory which was lying closed. the said copy delivered to the security personnel, did not reach the authorised personnel of the appellants. on receiving the copy of the impugned order by one shri o.p. jain on his visit to factory on 13-9-2003 from the security personnel the appellants had filed the instant appeal to the tribunal within ten days therefrom. however, with reference to the initial date of delivery of the order at the factory gate, there is admittedly a delay of 77 days in filing the instant appeal.3. when the matter was first heard by me on 14-11-03, it was noted that, the consultant had appeared in the proceedings before the commissioner (appeals) and it was possible that, the copy of the order would have also gone to the consultant and passing of the impugned order could not have been without his knowledge. responding to this, the ld. advocate submits that, the consultant did appear before the commissioner (appeals). but after the hearing, as can be seen from the face of the order the same was apparently not even despatched to him so that he could inform the appellant about its detail.4. the ld. dr has vehemently argued that, there is a delay in filing this appeal.5. on considering the submissions of the appellants it is noted that, since the factory was closed in a situation like this, the lack of communication is not uncommon. in fact, the appellants took steps for filing appeal to the cegat only after the copy of the impugned order was delivered to mr. jain. the ld. advocate submits that, shri o.p.jain visited the factory on 13-9-2003 and only on that day he was handed over the copy of the impugned order-in-appeal. immediately thereafter, the instant appeal was filed, within 10 days time.6. considering the circumstances as noted above,.....

Full Judgment

2. This is a request for condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the appeal against the order-in-appeal. The ld. Counsel pleads that, the copy of the impugned order was delivered to the Security personnel of the factory which was lying closed. The said copy delivered to the Security personnel, did not reach the authorised personnel of the appellants. On receiving the copy of the impugned order by one Shri O.P. Jain on his visit to factory on 13-9-2003 from the Security personnel the appellants had filed the instant appeal to the Tribunal within ten days therefrom. However, with reference to the initial date of delivery of the order at the factory gate, there is admittedly a delay of 77 days in filing the instant appeal.

3. When the matter was first heard by me on 14-11-03, it was noted that, the Consultant had appeared in the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) and it was possible that, the copy of the order would have also gone to the Consultant and passing of the impugned order could not have been without his knowledge. Responding to this, the ld. Advocate submits that, the Consultant did appear before the Commissioner (Appeals). But after the hearing, as can be seen from the face of the order the same was apparently not even despatched to him so that he could inform the appellant about its detail.

4. The ld. DR has vehemently argued that, there is a delay in filing this appeal.

5. On considering the submissions of the appellants it is noted that, since the factory was closed in a situation like this, the lack of communication is not uncommon. In fact, the appellants took steps for filing appeal to the CEGAT only after the copy of the impugned order was delivered to Mr. Jain. The ld. Advocate submits that, Shri O.P.Jain visited the factory on 13-9-2003 and only on that day he was handed over the copy of the impugned order-in-appeal. Immediately thereafter, the instant appeal was filed, within 10 days time.

6. Considering the circumstances as noted above, I find that there is a case for condonation of delay as prayed for. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted by condoning the delay. The COD applications is allowed and the stay application is listed for hearing on 5-1-2004.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Modern Threads (i) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M T K.D.