Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 27, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38876

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/38876
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa
Decided On: Apr 27, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(187)ELT215Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the present application has been filed by the respondent on the ground that the tribunal by condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal by the revenue has committed the error, inasmuch as it was not having any power to condone the delay.2. nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. after hearing the learned jdr, i do not find any merits in the above contention of the respondent inasmuch as the condonation of delay cannot be considered to be an error on the face of the records requiring any rectification.accordingly, rom is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The present application has been filed by the Respondent on the ground that the Tribunal by condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue has committed the error, inasmuch as it was not having any power to condone the delay.

2. Nobody is present on behalf of the Respondent. After hearing the learned JDR, I do not find any merits in the above contention of the respondent inasmuch as the condonation of delay cannot be considered to be an error on the face of the records requiring any rectification.

Accordingly, ROM is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A Wadhwa