Dismissed

Gupta Metallics and Power Ltd. through Its Director, Shri Mahesh D. Gupta v. the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Branch, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC1 Oct 2015CEL/33/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gupta Metallics appealed CESTAT's dismissal of its statutory appeal for delay. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal without costs, affirming CESTAT's findings on laches.

What did the court decide?

None. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Gupta Metallics and Power Ltd. through Its Director… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

cel33.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (CEL) NO. 33 OF 2014

¶5

(Gupta Metallics and Power Ltd. vs. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE OF RESERVE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCE : OCTOBER 01, 2015.

¶8

In this appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, challenges the order dated 19.5.2014 passed by respondent No. 1 - CESTAT in Appeal No. E/8562/14MUM and the order in original passed by respondent No. 2 - Commissioner at Nagpur on 24.08.2012.

¶9

Order dated 24.08.2012 was assailed before respondent No. 1 - CESTAT and as there was delay of 439 days in filing statutory appeal, prayer was to condone that delay and to stay the impugned recovery. CESTAT, on facts, found that there were two Directors viz. Shri Mahesh Gupta & Shri Ashok Bhojak who could have looked after the matter and ill health of Shri Jagdish Sharma between 24.09.2012 to 15.01.2014 did not constitute a just and sufficient cause.

¶10

CESTAT found that Shri Sharma was only an Excise Officer of the appellant Company who did attend the hearing before excise authorities in October, 2013

¶11

¶12

cel33.14

¶13

with the consultant Shri Sadavarte. Shri Sharma personally appeared on 17.10.2013 before Deputy Commissioner at Chandrapur. Thus, the claim in medical certificate was found wrong.

¶14

The manufacturing activity was discontinued in November, 2010 and Sharma appeared personally one year after the first date mentioned in the doctor's certificate and three months prior to end of his medical treatment. CESTAT also found that two Directors or any one of them could have filed the proceedings within limitation. These are the findings of facts.

¶15

Appeal before this Court is filed not by said Sharma but by the Director Mahesh Gupta. Why he could not file appeal before CESTAT or how could Shri Sharma appear in the matter before the Deputy Commissioner at Chandrapur, has not been clarified by him. Thus, there is no attempt to demonstrate that findings on facts reached by the CESTAT are perverse.

¶16

As we find that no substantial question of law is being raised in this appeal or then shown to be arising from the impugned order, no case is made out to enable us to interfere. Present Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶17

JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

*GS.

Gupta Metallics and Power Ltd. through Its Director, Shri Mahesh D. Gupta v. the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Branch, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Gupta Metallics and Power Ltd. through Its Director, Shri Mahesh D. Gupta v. the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Branch, Mumbai and Another

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

Sunil Onkarrao Udapurkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary Detp. of Technical and Higher Education, Mumbai, Ors.

S. Subbaram Vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of Education, Mumbai through Its Secretary and 5 Others

M/S M.Z. Enterprises, through Its Proprietor Shri. Mirza Zia Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Anothers

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Jamnalal Sons Pvt. Ltd.

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Jamnalal Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Shivaji Education Society, Amravati through Its Secretary, Amravati and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Deptt. of Technical Education through Its Secty., Mumbai and 3 Others