Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Gilatine Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Narmada Gilatine Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 01, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39867

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/39867
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-
Decided On: Aug 01, 2005
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Narmada Gilatine Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(190)ELT104TriDel

Excerpt

2. the revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of 56 days.3. the only contention of the revenue is that four commissioners (appeals) have passed a large number of during the past period. the number of orders passed by the commissioners of appeal during the months of july to december, 2004 is 725 and due to rush of work the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation.4. i find that the tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the appeal on showing reason that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation. the only reason i.e. rush of work cannot be said to be sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the period of limitation. therefore, the applications for condoning the delay are dismissed, consequently appeals are also dismissed. the cross-objections are also dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of 56 days.

3. The only contention of the Revenue is that four Commissioners (Appeals) have passed a large number of during the past period. The number of orders passed by the Commissioners of Appeal during the months of July to December, 2004 is 725 and due to rush of work the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation.

4. I find that the Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the appeal on showing reason that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation. The only reason i.e. rush of work cannot be said to be sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, the applications for condoning the delay are dismissed, consequently appeals are also dismissed. The cross-objections are also dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Narmada Gilatine Ltd. Same Subject MRTP Same Judge S Kang, Vice-