Moti Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Moti Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 09, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38387

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/38387
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj, M T K.C.
Decided On: Mar 09, 2005
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

Moti Industries

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(184)ELT366TriDel

Excerpt

2. the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution as none appeared on behalf of the appellants vide order dated 14-2-1997. earlier to that, the counsel had been appearing on behalf of the appellants and the date i.e. 14-2-1997, was fixed in the presence of the counsel. since on 14-2-1997 none appeared on behalf of the appellants, the tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. whereas the present application seeking restoration of the appeal has been filed only on 2-2-2005 after a lapse of about eight years. no sufficient cause has been made out for filing this application after such an inordinate delay. the valuable right which the revenue has acquired by the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance, to enforce the order-in-appeal against the appellants cannot be taken away, after expiry of eight years keeping in view the conduct of the appellants.therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to restore the appeal.the roa application is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution as none appeared on behalf of the appellants vide order dated 14-2-1997. Earlier to that, the counsel had been appearing on behalf of the appellants and the date i.e. 14-2-1997, was fixed in the presence of the counsel. Since on 14-2-1997 none appeared on behalf of the appellants, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Whereas the present application seeking restoration of the appeal has been filed only on 2-2-2005 after a lapse of about eight years. No sufficient cause has been made out for filing this application after such an inordinate delay. The valuable right which the Revenue has acquired by the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance, to enforce the order-in-appeal against the appellants cannot be taken away, after expiry of eight years keeping in view the conduct of the appellants.

Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to restore the appeal.

The ROA application is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Moti Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P Bajaj, M T K.C.