Collector of Central Excise Vs. Paushak Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Paushak Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 21, 1990

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/5793

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/5793
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: G Sankaran, S Peeran
Decided On: Jun 21, 1990
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Paushak Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1990)(31)LC647Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....by the assistant collector of central excise, baroda. on that day, the jdr confined his arguments to only one appeal and same was reserved for orders. now the revenue has come up with two supplementary appeals with this application for condonation of delay. they have submitted in these two cods that three orders referred to in the said order in appeal were involving same issue and concerning the same party and only one appeal was preferred on 13.3.1986 against the said order in appeal, which was numbered as 938/86-c. they have submitted that the delay is caused due to prevailing established practice. at no stage and no point of time an intentional or wilful delay has been caused. they have sought for condonation of delay in their favour by considering the public interest involved and keeping in view the established practice.3. shri s.d. gohil, learned advocate for the respondent has seriously opposed the condonation application and placed before us several rulings in his favour. he also pointed out that the supplementary appeals have been filed by superintendent (appeals) central excise and customs, vadodara who has not been authorised to file the appeals by the collector of central excise under section 35b (2) of central excises and salt act, 1944.4. we have heard both sides. considering the submissions made by them and without going into the question of condonation of delay, we are constrained to reject these appeals upholding the learned advocate's objection that the appeals have been filed without proper authorisation of collector for filing the appeals under section 35b (2) of the central excises & salt act, 1944. these supplemental appeals have been filed by superintendent (appeals), who is not the authorised person to file these appeals by the collector as per section 35b (2) of the ce & s act, 1944. the appeals are liable to be rejected on this ground alone and the same are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In those two COD applications, Revenue sought for condonation of delay in filing two supplementary appeals as numbered above.

2. Appeal No. 938/88C had come up for final hearing on 9.2.1990 on which date it was pointed out to the JDR that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay in his common order had disposed of 3 orders in original which had been passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. On that day, the JDR confined his arguments to only one appeal and same was reserved for orders. Now the Revenue has come up with two supplementary appeals with this application for condonation of delay. They have submitted in these two CODs that three orders referred to in the said order in appeal were involving same issue and concerning the same party and only one appeal was preferred on 13.3.1986 against the said order in appeal, which was numbered as 938/86-C. They have submitted that the delay is caused due to prevailing established practice. At no stage and no point of time an intentional or wilful delay has been caused. They have sought for condonation of delay in their favour by considering the public interest involved and keeping in view the established practice.

3. Shri S.D. Gohil, learned advocate for the respondent has seriously opposed the condonation application and placed before us several rulings in his favour. He also pointed out that the supplementary appeals have been filed by Superintendent (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara who has not been authorised to file the appeals by the Collector of Central Excise under Section 35B (2) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

4. We have heard both sides. Considering the submissions made by them and without going into the question of condonation of delay, we are constrained to reject these appeals upholding the learned advocate's objection that the appeals have been filed without proper authorisation of Collector for filing the appeals under Section 35B (2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. These supplemental appeals have been filed by Superintendent (Appeals), who is not the authorised person to file these appeals by the Collector as per Section 35B (2) of the CE & S Act, 1944. The appeals are liable to be rejected on this ground alone and the same are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Paushak Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge G Sankaran, S Peeran