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.

Chandan Polymers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Chandan Polymers vs Collector of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 21, 1989
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/5199

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 Delhi
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

Chandan Polymers

Respondent

Collector of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In
(1990)LC497Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the applicants have made a prayer for dispensation of the pre-deposits of the duty amount of rs. 53,577.11. shri a.l. mathur ld.consultant has appeared on behalf of the applicants has pleaded that the period involved in the present appeal is from 17-11-1986 to 24-12-1986 and the show cause notice is dated 10-03-1988 and the same was issued by the superintendent of central excise and after the amendment of the proviso to section 11-a w.e.f. 27-12-1985 the superintendent had no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and the proceedings are ab initio void. in support of his arguments he has cited judgment of the tribunal in the case of kapil brothers v. c.c.e., patna reported in 1988 (37) e.l.t. 239 (tribunal). he has pleaded for the grant of stay. sh. m.s. arora, ld. jdr in view of the earlier judgments of the tribunal leaves it to the bench.2. we have heard both sides. the facts are not disputed. the show cause notice was issued by the superintendent and the extended period of limitations of 5 years has been invoked. the tribunal in the case of kapil brothers v. c.c.e., patna, reported in 1988 (18) ecr 437 had followed the gujarat high court's judgment in the case of gujarat state fertilizer co. ltd. and anr v. u.o.i, and ors. reported in 1988 (34) e.l.t. 442 (s.c.). in view of the legal position discussed above, we are of the view that if the applicants are desired to deposit an amount of rs. 53,577.11, it will amount to undue hardship. we dispense with the pre-deposit of the same and further order that during the pendency of the appeal, the revenue authority will not pursue recovery proceedings of the duty amount.

Full Judgment

1. The applicants have made a prayer for dispensation of the pre-deposits of the duty amount of Rs. 53,577.11. Shri A.L. Mathur Ld.

Consultant has appeared on behalf of the Applicants has pleaded that the period involved in the present appeal is from 17-11-1986 to 24-12-1986 and the Show Cause Notice is dated 10-03-1988 and the same was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and after the amendment of the proviso to Section 11-A w.e.f. 27-12-1985 the Superintendent had no jurisdiction to issue the Show Cause Notice and the proceedings are ab initio void. In support of his arguments he has cited judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kapil Brothers v. C.C.E., Patna reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 239 (Tribunal). He has pleaded for the grant of stay. Sh. M.S. Arora, Ld. JDR in view of the earlier judgments of the Tribunal leaves it to the Bench.

2. We have heard both sides. The facts are not disputed. The Show Cause Notice was issued by the Superintendent and the extended period of limitations of 5 years has been invoked. The Tribunal in the case of Kapil Brothers v. C.C.E., Patna, reported in 1988 (18) ECR 437 had followed the Gujarat High Court's judgment in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Anr v. U.O.I, and Ors. reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.). In view of the legal position discussed above, we are of the view that if the applicants are desired to deposit an amount of Rs. 53,577.11, it will amount to undue hardship. We dispense with the pre-deposit of the same and further order that during the pendency of the appeal, the Revenue authority will not pursue recovery proceedings of the duty amount.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial