Chamunda Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Chamunda Inds. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 16, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34970

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/34970
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar
Decided On: Apr 16, 2004
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

Chamunda Inds.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(170)ELT556Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. k.v. parmar, member (j) learned consultant appeared on behalf of the appellant and shri m.h, shaikh, learned jdr appeared on behalf of the revenue.2. the learned consultant inter alia submitted that the commissioner (appeals) has not considered the case laws cited before him and he has not given any finding thereon.3. shri m.h. shaikh, learned jdr, appearing on behalf of the revenue fairly conceded that since commissioner (appeals) has not considered the case laws relied on by the appellant as cited before him, it would be necessary to remand the matter to him for fresh adjudication and to pass a fresh speaking order.4. after hearing both sides and perusal of the records, i remand the matter to the commissioner (appeals) to consider the cases cited by the appellant and record his findings thereon and pass a fresh speaking order.

Full Judgment

1. K.V. Parmar, Member (J) learned Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri M.H, Shaikh, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.

2. The learned Consultant inter alia submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the case laws cited before him and he has not given any finding thereon.

3. Shri M.H. Shaikh, learned JDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly conceded that since Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the case laws relied on by the appellant as cited before him, it would be necessary to remand the matter to him for fresh adjudication and to pass a fresh speaking order.

4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, I remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the cases cited by the appellant and record his findings thereon and pass a fresh speaking order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Chamunda Inds. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K Kumar