Kamal Engineering Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Kamal Engineering vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 13, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7019

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/7019
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 13, 1993
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

Kamal Engineering

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1994)(69)ELT389Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....occurred; because the excise clerk was not attending to these papers and subsequently he took away these papers from the factory, which were got back with the help of ex-mayor. they have also made a police complaint against the excise clerk. their factory is a small scale unit consisting of one excise clerk, who was employed as a part-time worker.hence, the delay is mainly attributed to the excise clerk who was not putting up the papers to the proprietor and took away these papers from the factory, which were got back only on 8-11-1992. they filed the appeal in both the cases on 29-11-1992. in this context, the affidavit from the ex-mayor and also the copies of the connected documents explaining the aforesaid position have been produced during the hearing. the department also conducted an enquiry in this regard as is evident from their letter. in view of the documents and the affidavits filed by the ex-mayor, we are to hold that the papers were not properly handled by the excise clerk by putting up the same to the proprietor and even these papers were taken away by the excise clerk. in these circumstances, the delays in both the cases are condonable, since it is not wanton or deliberate on the part of the proprietor. hence, we condone the delay in both the cases and take up the appeals for disposal in due course.2. in so far as the stay application 765/92 is concerned, since the amount has already been deposited, the stay application has become infruc-tuous and is therefore dismissed. in so far as the stay application 3509/92, shri kapoor pleads that they have got an excellent arguable case based on the board's circular dated 21-8-1987. however, he offered to make a deposit of rs. 10,000/- as against a sum of rs. 21,060.50 towards duty and penalty of rs. 5,000/- vide order in original no. 14/91 dated 27-3-1991. we accept the offer and direct the applicants to deposit a sum of rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) in cash within a period of ten weeks from the.....

Full Judgment

1. There is a delay of 2 years 3 months and 21 days in the case of COD-168/92 and 1 year 5 months and 12 days in the case of COD-367/92.

The common reason given in both the cases is that the delay has occurred; because the Excise Clerk was not attending to these papers and subsequently he took away these papers from the factory, which were got back with the help of Ex-Mayor. They have also made a Police complaint against the Excise Clerk. Their factory is a small scale unit consisting of one Excise Clerk, who was employed as a part-time worker.

Hence, the delay is mainly attributed to the Excise Clerk who was not putting up the papers to the proprietor and took away these papers from the factory, which were got back only on 8-11-1992. They filed the appeal in both the cases on 29-11-1992. In this context, the affidavit from the Ex-Mayor and also the copies of the connected documents explaining the aforesaid position have been produced during the hearing. The Department also conducted an enquiry in this regard as is evident from their letter. In view of the documents and the affidavits filed by the Ex-Mayor, we are to hold that the papers were not properly handled by the Excise Clerk by putting up the same to the proprietor and even these papers were taken away by the Excise Clerk. In these circumstances, the delays in both the cases are condonable, since it is not wanton or deliberate on the part of the proprietor. Hence, we condone the delay in both the cases and take up the appeals for disposal in due course.

2. In so far as the stay application 765/92 is concerned, since the amount has already been deposited, the stay application has become infruc-tuous and is therefore dismissed. In so far as the stay application 3509/92, Shri Kapoor pleads that they have got an excellent arguable case based on the Board's circular dated 21-8-1987. However, he offered to make a deposit of Rs. 10,000/- as against a sum of Rs. 21,060.50 towards duty and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- vide order in original No. 14/91 dated 27-3-1991. We accept the offer and direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in cash within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order and reporting compliance within eleven weeks, failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected. On making the deposit, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the balance of duty and penalty amount.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Kamal Engineering vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition