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.

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Himson Textile Engg. Industries

Collector of C. Ex. vs Himson Textile Engg. Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 17, 1993
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7030

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 Mumbai
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

Collector of C. Ex.

Respondent

Himson Textile Engg. Industries

Legal References

Reported In
(1994)(69)ELT89Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....has been adopted by the collector, in column 8, he referred to annexure 'b', which reads "grounds of appeal" and no question has been framed. on this ground itself, the reference application merits rejection straightaway. it is needless for me to mention that there cannot be any appeal against the order of the tribunal, since it is final. however, provision is made for agitating any point of law, where either side feels that the tribunal has erred on a point of law. in this case, much ado is made about a demand for rs. 215.00 and a penalty of rs. 100/-. the allegation is that the respondents have cleared some replacement parts from the factory without payment of duty, whereas on appreciation of the evidences placed before me, it was held by me that those clearances relate to bought out components cleared from outside depot and on that ground allowed the appeal. there were also evidences produced during the hearing of appeal to show that the removals were effected from the place outside the licenced premises. there is absolutely no point of law and is purely a question of appreciating the evidence. it is a matter of regret that an officer of the rank of collector is wasting the time of all in pursuing a matter, where the demand of rs. 215/- and a penalty of rs. 100/- are involved, especially when there is no legal point involved in the litigation. it is better that this time is devoted to more productive efforts. with this observation, i dismiss the reference application.3. i would suggest that a copy of the order may be sent to the board, member (judicial) for his information.

Full Judgment

1. Shri Ravinder Jain, the Id. JDR, sought for an adjournment. Since the respondent's consultant is from out-station and no question of law is framed, I do not find any reason to grant an adjournment.

2. This application is purported to be a Reference Application moved by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat, against the Order No.455/93-WRB, dated 19-3-1993 passed by this Bench. Though the proforma for filing the Reference Application has been adopted by the Collector, in Column 8, he referred to Annexure 'B', which reads "Grounds of Appeal" and no question has been framed. On this ground itself, the Reference Application merits rejection straightaway. It is needless for me to mention that there cannot be any appeal against the order of the Tribunal, since it is final. However, provision is made for agitating any point of law, where either side feels that the Tribunal has erred on a point of law. In this case, much ado is made about a demand for Rs. 215.00 and a penalty of Rs. 100/-. The allegation is that the respondents have cleared some replacement parts from the factory without payment of duty, whereas on appreciation of the evidences placed before me, it was held by me that those clearances relate to bought out components cleared from outside Depot and on that ground allowed the appeal. There were also evidences produced during the hearing of appeal to show that the removals were effected from the place outside the licenced premises. There is absolutely no point of law and is purely a question of appreciating the evidence. It is a matter of regret that an officer of the rank of Collector is wasting the time of all in pursuing a matter, where the demand of Rs. 215/- and a penalty of Rs. 100/- are involved, especially when there is no legal point involved in the litigation. It is better that this time is devoted to more productive efforts. With this observation, I dismiss the Reference Application.

3. I would suggest that a copy of the order may be sent to the Board, Member (Judicial) for his information.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial