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.

Global Syntex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Global Syntex vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 09, 2005
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39307

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
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

Global Syntex

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(188)ELT344Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. appellants are an assessee under the central excise act and are engaged in the processing of mmf. they obtained a registration under the act as a manufacturer for the factory effective from 12-4-2001 & under letter dated 18-4-2001 intimated the department that installation of machines are in progress and followed it up by letter dated 31-7-2001. on 16-8-2001, they filed an application for availment of compounded levy scheme under rule 15 of central excise (no. 2) rules, 2001 read with notification no. 32/2001-c.e., dated 28-6-2001 and on 20-8-2001 intimated the start of production with effect from 23-8-2001 and started dyeing process.1.2 on 19-2-2002, they received a letter from . commissioner, informing them that the request for availment of compounded levy scheme under rule 15 of central excise (no. 2) rules, 2001 for the year 2001-02 cannot be acceded and in view of the provisions of notification no.32/2001-c.e., dated 28-6-2001 and application was rejected by the commissioner.1.3 on a persistent persual of obtaining an order, a communication dated 7-3-2002 was received from dy. commissioner (tech), central excise and customs, surat-i informing the rejection of commissioner to be in view of the explanation in paragraph 7(2) of the said notification 32/2001-c.e., dated 28-6-2001. it also intimated that the reconsideration has lost its relevance because of withdrawal of scheme from 1-3-2002.1.4 duty demands were made on ad valorem basis vide letter dated 11-3-2002 from range-1, div. iii superintendent.1.5 in spite of persistent requests, no appealable order was issued by the commissioner. hence this appeal against letter dated 19-2-2002 of jt. commissioner intimating the rejection by the commissioner.2.1 after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, it is found - (a) on a prima facie consideration, the mere registration obtained effective 12-4-2001 without effective power operated installation of plant & machinery cannot constitute.....

Full Judgment

1. Appellants are an assessee under the Central Excise Act and are engaged in the processing of MMF. They obtained a registration under the Act as a manufacturer for the factory effective from 12-4-2001 & under letter dated 18-4-2001 intimated the department that installation of machines are in progress and followed it up by letter dated 31-7-2001. On 16-8-2001, they filed an application for availment of Compounded Levy scheme under Rule 15 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 read with Notification No. 32/2001-C.E., dated 28-6-2001 and on 20-8-2001 intimated the start of production with effect from 23-8-2001 and started dyeing process.

1.2 On 19-2-2002, they received a letter from . Commissioner, informing them that the request for availment of compounded levy scheme under Rule 15 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 for the year 2001-02 cannot be acceded and in view of the provisions of Notification No.32/2001-C.E., dated 28-6-2001 and application was rejected by the Commissioner.

1.3 On a persistent persual of obtaining an order, a communication dated 7-3-2002 was received from Dy. Commissioner (Tech), Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I informing the rejection of Commissioner to be in view of the explanation in Paragraph 7(2) of the said Notification 32/2001-C.E., dated 28-6-2001. It also intimated that the reconsideration has lost its relevance because of withdrawal of scheme from 1-3-2002.

1.4 Duty demands were made on ad valorem basis vide letter dated 11-3-2002 from Range-1, Div. III Superintendent.

1.5 In spite of persistent requests, no appealable order was issued by the Commissioner. Hence this appeal against letter dated 19-2-2002 of Jt. Commissioner intimating the rejection by the Commissioner.

2.1 After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, it is found - (a) On a prima facie consideration, the mere Registration obtained effective 12-4-2001 without effective power operated installation of plant & machinery cannot constitute the appellant to be an existing Independent Textile Processor to be impugned by explanation X to the notification. Since a registration under Central Excise always has to proceed manufactures.

(b) From the papers on record, the Commissioner's mind in rejecting the application made and reasons thereto that also without a hearing or an appealable speaking order issued by him cannot be appreciated.

The appellant's right to appeal has been frustrated. The issue of a speaking order dismissing the claim and has resulted in a demands of duties. Commissioner in such a case where important fiscal liabilities will result has to hear and thereafter issue an order on merits giving reasons for his decision. This can be corrected now by a post-decision hearing.

(c) The present appeal, against a letter communicating the Commissioner's decision to reject the request cannot be entertained.

The appeal is returned, with directions to the Commissioner to hear the appellant and thereafter pass a speaking order. Appellants at liberty thereafter to file a copy of the said order and pursue the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial