Samir T. Thakkar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Samir T. Thakkar vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 31, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33613

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/33613
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T C.
Decided On: Dec 31, 2003
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Samir T. Thakkar

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(166)ELT173Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. the impugned order has been passed by commissioner (appeals) stating inter alia as follows :- "however, as shri samir t. thakkar, partner of the appellant-company has not filed separate appeal under section 35, i refrain from passing any order against the personal penalty imposed under rule 209a of cer, 1944 & rule 26 of central excise (no. 2) rules, 2001." it is the case of the appellant that he is partner of m/s. jaishil sulphur & chemical industries and that he had replied to the show cause notice jointly along with the said firm and had also similarly filed a joint appeal/stay application with the commissioner (appeals). the appellant further states that the issue of not filing appeal/stay application separately was not raised at the time of accepting the appeal or at the time of personal hearing. as such, the appellant states that the impugned order has been passed as a result of misconception by the commissioner (appeals) and further states that there is no provision in the rules that no joint appeals can be filed.2. after hearing both sides and perusal of case records, i am of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case requiring waiver of pre-deposit. as such, the pre-deposit is waived and the regular hearing of the case is fixed for 6-2-2004.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. The impugned order has been passed by Commissioner (Appeals) stating inter alia as follows :- "However, as Shri Samir T. Thakkar, Partner of the appellant-company has not filed separate appeal under Section 35, I refrain from passing any order against the personal penalty imposed under Rule 209A of CER, 1944 & Rule 26 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001." It is the case of the appellant that he is Partner of M/s. Jaishil Sulphur & Chemical Industries and that he had replied to the Show Cause Notice jointly along with the said firm and had also similarly filed a joint appeal/stay application with the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant further states that the issue of not filing appeal/stay application separately was not raised at the time of accepting the appeal or at the time of personal hearing. As such, the appellant states that the impugned order has been passed as a result of misconception by the Commissioner (Appeals) and further states that there is no provision in the rules that no joint appeals can be filed.

2. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case requiring waiver of pre-deposit. As such, the pre-deposit is waived and the regular hearing of the case is fixed for 6-2-2004.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Samir T. Thakkar vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Education Same Judge S T C.