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.

M/S Kumar Industries Vs. C.C.E., Lucknow

M/S Kumar Industries vs C.C.E., Lucknow

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 23, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/942479

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
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Central Excise Appeal No.270 of 2010-SM
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S Kumar Industries

Advocate Shri I. Baig, Authorised Departmental Representative (SDR) for the Revenue.

Respondent

C.C.E., Lucknow

Excerpt

per m. veeraiyan: vide stay order no.113/2010-sm(br.) dated 22.3.2010, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of rs.10,000/- and report compliance on 8th june, 2010. it has come to notice that compliance of the stay order has not been reported. in view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 35f of the act read with stay order dated 22.3.2010.

Full Judgment

Per M. Veeraiyan:

Vide Stay Order No.113/2010-SM(Br.) dated 22.3.2010, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- and report compliance on 8th June, 2010. It has come to notice that compliance of the stay order has not been reported. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Act read with Stay Order dated 22.3.2010.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial