Collector of Central Excise Vs. R.S. Metals and anr.

Collector of Central Excise vs R.S. Metals and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 07, 1989

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/5107

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/5107
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: H Chander, B T S.K., G B Deva
Decided On: Aug 07, 1989
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

R.S. Metals and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(24)LC443Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. at the outset of the hearing the learned advocates for the respondents had raised a preliminary objection that the authorisation by the collector in terms of provisions of section 35b(2) is not proper. in support of their arguments the learned advocates cited a judgment of the tribunal in the case of cce v. asiatic oxygen (sic).2. shri k. d. tayal, the learned s.d.r. who had appeared on behalf of the appellant produced the original file where the collector had passed the order for filing of the appeal, and the file was shown to the advocates. shri tayal stated that the authorisation is proper and pleads that the objection raised by the respondents may be overruled.3. we have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. the authorisation in both the appeals is similar. the authorisation in the case of m/s. jaipur metals and electricals ltd. is reproduced below:collector of central excise, jaipur...appellantv.i, van lalvela collector, central excise, jaipur hereby authorise shri b.c. chopra, sr. superintendent (review), central excise jaipur to file an appeal on my behalf to the customs, excise and gold (control), appellate tribunal, new delhi in the case of m/s. jaipur metals & electricals ltd. jaipur.4. we have also gone through the original file of the collector where the authorisation to file the appeal was given. we do not find any force in the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. the objection is overruled and we hold that in both the appeals there was proper authorisation in terms of section 35b(2) and there was substantive compliance of the above section.

Full Judgment

1. At the outset of the hearing the learned advocates for the respondents had raised a preliminary objection that the authorisation by the Collector in terms of provisions of Section 35B(2) is not proper. In support of their arguments the learned advocates cited a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Asiatic Oxygen (sic).

2. Shri K. D. Tayal, the learned S.D.R. who had appeared on behalf of the appellant produced the original file where the Collector had passed the order for filing of the appeal, and the file was shown to the advocates. Shri Tayal stated that the authorisation is proper and pleads that the objection raised by the respondents may be overruled.

3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The authorisation in both the appeals is similar. The authorisation in the case of M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. is reproduced below:Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur...Appellantv.I, Van Lalvela Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur hereby authorise Shri B.C. Chopra, Sr. Superintendent (Review), Central Excise Jaipur to file an appeal on my behalf to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of M/s. Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd. Jaipur.

4. We have also gone through the original file of the Collector where the authorisation to file the appeal was given. We do not find any force in the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. The objection is overruled and we hold that in both the appeals there was proper authorisation in terms of Section 35B(2) and there was substantive compliance of the above section.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs R.S. Metals and anr. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge H Chander, B T S.K., G B Deva