Allowed

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2009WP/442/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Petition No.442 of 2009 set aside the CESTAT order dismissing the Commissioner's appeal due to a procedural defect. The court held that procedure should not trip justice and ordered the appeal restored to the CESTAT file with an opportunity to cure the defect. The connected petition and Central Excise Appeal were disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Appeal restored to CESTAT file to hear on merits. Rule made absolute. Connected petition and appeal disposed off.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S. Coromandel… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
WRIT PETITION NO.442 OF 2009
 WITH
 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.8 OF 2009
 WITH

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1181 OF 2009

¶4

 Commissioner of Central Excise ...Petitioner.
 V/s.
 M/s.Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. ...Respondent.

¶5

 Mr.A.S.Rao , adv. for the Petitioner.

¶6

 Mr.H.S.Prasad, AGM (Indirect Tax) representative of
 respondent present in person.

¶7

 CORAM: F.I.Rebello &
J.H.Bhatia,JJ.
 DATE : 15th April, 2009.

¶8

 P.C.:

¶9

 1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶10

 2. Respondents are represented by their A.G.M. Shri
 H.S.Prasad (Indirect Tax). Petitioner herein also filed an

¶11

 appeal being Central Excise Appeal (Lodging) No.312 of
 2009.

¶12

 3. The appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was
 dismissed on the ground of authorisation which was required
 while filing the appeal has been signed by Commissioner
 Belapur, alone due to the reason, that during the relevant

¶13

 : 2 :

¶14

 period the Commissioner Central Excise, Belapur was holding
 additional charge of Commissioner Central Excise, Raigad.
 The Tribunal relied upon an earlier order and dismissed
 the appeal.

¶15

 4. Firstly, defect if any is procedural and an
 irregularity and not illegality. In these circumstances,
 the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to
 cure the irregularity. That was not done. Even otherwise,
 if at the relevant time, the Commissioner, Belapur was
 holding additional charge of Central Excise, Raigad, there
 was no defect. Our attention is drawn to the earlier order
 which was relied upon by the learned Tribunal. Law is
 settled that procedure should not be allowed to come in the
 way of justice. It is not meant to trip justice. In the
 instant case, the very defect, if any was procedural. In
 such cases, opportunities must be given to the parties to
 cure such defects.

¶16

 5. Considering the above, the impugned order is set
 aside. Appeal is restored to the file of CESTAT. . It
 will hear the appeal on merits including all the
 contentions raised by the respondents including on
 limitation.

¶17

 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to

¶18

 : 3 :

¶19

 costs.

¶20

 7. As the petition is allowed, nothing further
 survive in Central Excise Appeal (L) No.8 of 2009 alongwith
 Notice of Motion No.118 of 2009 and accordingly, both are
 disposed off.

¶21

(F.I.Rebello, J.)

¶22

(J.H.Bhatia, J.)

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

the commissoner of income-tax-16, Vs mrs hansa motasha and Ors.

M/S. Delux Exports Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Mr. D.M. Ranadive and Ors. Vs Airport Authority of India and Anr.

M/S. Mittal Constructions Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai II , Mumbai Vs M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai Vs M/S Ramdhan Mohanlal and Co. Pvt. Ltd.