Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vardhman Cable (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Vardhman Cable (India) vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 28, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38264

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vardhman Cable (India)

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(184)ELT275TriDel

Excerpt

1. these two appeals have been filed by m/s. vardhman cables (india) and shri parag jain, director against dismissal of their appeal by the commissioner (appeals) on the ground of time limit.2. we heard shri kamaljeet singh, learned advocate and shri bipin verma, learned departmental representative. learned advocate submitted that they had filed the appeal before the commissioner (appeals) on 20-8-2004 against order-in-original no. 113/2004, dated 20-4-2004 passed by the assistant commissioner; that the said order-in-original was communicated to them on 22-6-2004 and as such the appeal filed by them on 20-8-2004 was within the time limit specified in section 35 of the central excise act; that the commissioner (appeals) made his own inquiry from the assistant commissioner who informed him that the order-in-original was despatched to the appellants on 20-4-2002 itself and order was delivered to the appellants on 29-4-2004 which has also been confirmed by post master; that the commissioner (appeals) on the basis of said information collected by him on his part has dismissed the appeal without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. we agree with the learned advocate that the present impugned order has been passed by the commissioner (appeals) in gross violation of the principle of natural justice as neither the letter of the assistant commissioner nor the communication received from post master had been brought to the notice of the appellants and no opportunity has been given to them to controvert the same. we, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the commissioner (appeals) to decide the matter afresh after furnishing the copies of the communication relied upon by him to the appellants and also after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to them. both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Full Judgment

1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Vardhman Cables (India) and Shri Parag Jain, Director against dismissal of their Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of time limit.

2. We heard Shri Kamaljeet Singh, learned Advocate and Shri Bipin Verma, learned Departmental Representative. Learned Advocate submitted that they had filed the Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 20-8-2004 against Order-in-Original No. 113/2004, dated 20-4-2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner; that the said Order-in-original was communicated to them on 22-6-2004 and as such the Appeal filed by them on 20-8-2004 was within the time limit specified in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner (Appeals) made his own inquiry from the Assistant Commissioner who informed him that the Order-in-original was despatched to the Appellants on 20-4-2002 itself and Order was delivered to the Appellants on 29-4-2004 which has also been confirmed by Post Master; that the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of said information collected by him on his part has dismissed the Appeal without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. We agree with the learned Advocate that the present impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in gross violation of the principle of natural justice as neither the letter of the Assistant Commissioner nor the communication received from Post Master had been brought to the notice of the Appellants and no opportunity has been given to them to controvert the same. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh after furnishing the copies of the communication relied upon by him to the Appellants and also after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to them. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial