Bhel Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Bhel vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 09, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33348

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/33348
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Dec 09, 2003
Subject: Contract

Case Summary

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

Contract

Key legal issue: Contract

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhel

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(166)ELT274TriDel

Excerpt

1. both the above applications are filed by the appellant in appeal no.e/2567 to 2576/98-nb(a). the above appeals were dismissed by us under final order nos. 170-179/03-nb(a), dated 10-4-2003 [2003 (158) e.l.t.634 (t)]. we followed an earlier order in the case of appellant itself, namely, final order nos. 179-180/99-a, dated 23-2-99 [1999 (112) e.l.t.246 (t)]. it was brought to our notice by the learned dr that the appeals filed by the assessee as civil appeal nos. 3643-3644/99 before the supreme court were dismissed on 25-3-2003 [2003 (154) e.l.t. 10 (s.c.)].2. the above referred rom was filed by the appellant on 29-7-2003 contending that notice for hearing of the appeal was received only eight days after the date of hearing, therefore, the applicant could not be present in the court and address arguments on the issue of imposition of penalty which was not legally sustainable. the appellant contended that non-consideration of question of penalty is error apparent on the face of the record and the final order has to be rectified. later they filed miscellaneous application no. e/335/03-a on 3-10-2003 seeking to take one more ground in the rom application.according to the application substantial portion of the duty demand was barred by limitation which was not considered in the final order.3. when the matter came up for hearing on 3-12-2003 the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that the final order dated 10-4-2003 itself was taken in appeal by the assessee to supreme court. those appeals were dismissed by the supreme court by order dated 26-9-2003 [2004 (164) e.l.t. a132 (s.c.)]. he also mentioned that a review petition dated 27-10-2003 filed against the dismissal of the civil appeals was also dismissed subsequently by the supreme court.4. since the order passed by this tribunal dated 10-4-2003 has merged with the order of the hon'ble supreme court dated 26-9-2003 which was also the subject of order in an application for review.....

Full Judgment

1. Both the above applications are filed by the appellant in Appeal No.E/2567 to 2576/98-NB(A). The above appeals were dismissed by us under Final Order Nos. 170-179/03-NB(A), dated 10-4-2003 [2003 (158) E.L.T.634 (T)]. We followed an earlier order in the case of appellant itself, namely, Final Order Nos. 179-180/99-A, dated 23-2-99 [1999 (112) E.L.T.246 (T)]. It was brought to our notice by the learned DR that the appeals filed by the assessee as Civil Appeal Nos. 3643-3644/99 before the Supreme Court were dismissed on 25-3-2003 [2003 (154) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.)].

2. The above referred ROM was filed by the appellant on 29-7-2003 contending that notice for hearing of the appeal was received only eight days after the date of hearing, therefore, the applicant could not be present in the Court and address arguments on the issue of imposition of penalty which was not legally sustainable. The appellant contended that non-consideration of question of penalty is error apparent on the face of the record and the final order has to be rectified. Later they filed miscellaneous application No. E/335/03-A on 3-10-2003 seeking to take one more ground in the ROM application.

According to the application substantial portion of the duty demand was barred by limitation which was not considered in the final order.

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 3-12-2003 the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that the final order dated 10-4-2003 itself was taken in appeal by the assessee to Supreme Court. Those appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 26-9-2003 [2004 (164) E.L.T. A132 (S.C.)]. He also mentioned that a review petition dated 27-10-2003 filed against the dismissal of the civil appeals was also dismissed subsequently by the Supreme Court.

4. Since the order passed by this Tribunal dated 10-4-2003 has merged with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26-9-2003 which was also the subject of order in an application for review made by the applicant, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the applicant in the ROM application filed before us.

5. In view of the above, the ROM and miscellaneous applications stand dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Bhel vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Contract Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.