Eicher Tractor Ltd. Vs. Collector Central Excise

Eicher Tractor Ltd. vs Collector Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 21, 1994

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7894

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/7894
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Oct 21, 1994
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Eicher Tractor Ltd.

Respondent

Collector Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1994)(74)ELT347TriDel

Excerpt

1. shri v. swaminathan, senior manager of the applicants' firm submitted that the non-appearance of their representative on the earlier date when their appeal was posted for hearing was beyond his control. actually, they had engaged shri madhavan, chartered accountant, who was to appear on their behalf but due to his prior commitment, he could not be present for the hearing. however, he had sent a letter to that effect with a request for adjournment through his assistant shri balwant singh. the latter had visited the tribunal on the said date i.e. 28-4-1994 in the morning but he was given to understand that the bench was not available in the morning. he did not know that the bench was to sit in the afternoon session. his failure to attend the tribunal for submission of the application for adjournment was due to his lack of familiarity with the work and not due to any negligence. shri swaminathan requested that the restoration of appeal may be allowed in view of the circumstances explained.2. shri v.c. bhartiya, learned departmental representative left the matter for decision by the bench.3. we are satisfied that this is a fit case for restoration of appeal.we order accordingly. appeal is now posted for the hearing on 26-10-1994.

Full Judgment

1. Shri V. Swaminathan, Senior Manager of the applicants' firm submitted that the non-appearance of their representative on the earlier date when their appeal was posted for hearing was beyond his control. Actually, they had engaged Shri Madhavan, Chartered Accountant, who was to appear on their behalf but due to his prior commitment, he could not be present for the hearing. However, he had sent a letter to that effect with a request for adjournment through his assistant Shri Balwant Singh. The latter had visited the Tribunal on the said date i.e. 28-4-1994 in the morning but he was given to understand that the Bench was not available in the morning. He did not know that the Bench was to sit in the afternoon session. His failure to attend the Tribunal for submission of the application for adjournment was due to his lack of familiarity with the work and not due to any negligence. Shri Swaminathan requested that the restoration of appeal may be allowed in view of the circumstances explained.

2. Shri V.C. Bhartiya, learned Departmental Representative left the matter for decision by the Bench.

3. We are satisfied that this is a fit case for restoration of appeal.

We order accordingly. Appeal is now posted for the hearing on 26-10-1994.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Eicher Tractor Ltd. vs Collector Central Excise Same Subject MRTP