Hind Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Hind Polymers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 18, 2006

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42670

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/42670
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B.
Decided On: May 18, 2006
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

Hind Polymers Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. heard both sides and perused the record. the stay application is directed against an order of commissioner (appeals). the commissioner (appeals) rejected the appeal for the reason that the appellant failed to make pre-deposit as ordered.2. the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the requirement for pre-deposit was unjust since the show cause notice had been issued six years after the period and also that the appellant was financially in great difficulties. it has also been pointed out that the demand would not be sustainable in view of this tribunal's decision in the case of l.h. sugar mills .3. the appellant's application for waiving the requirement for pre-deposit merited acceptance. the rejection of the same and subsequent rejection of the appeal for failure to make the pre-deposit were not justified. the commissioner should consider the appeal on merit and pass an order.4. in the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the commissioner for a decision on merit.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The stay application is directed against an order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal for the reason that the appellant failed to make pre-deposit as ordered.

2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the requirement for pre-deposit was unjust since the show cause notice had been issued six years after the period and also that the appellant was financially in great difficulties. It has also been pointed out that the demand would not be sustainable in view of this Tribunal's decision in the case of L.H. Sugar Mills .

3. The appellant's application for waiving the requirement for pre-deposit merited acceptance. The rejection of the same and subsequent rejection of the appeal for failure to make the pre-deposit were not justified. The Commissioner should consider the appeal on merit and pass an order.

4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on merit.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Hind Polymers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge N T C.N.B.

Land Acquisition set aside