Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. M/S J.K. Khalsa Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jan 2011CEA/189/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerned the Tribunal's restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution after six months. The High Court held that since the appellant failed to raise such objection before the Tribunal and could not provide dates, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law arising.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I Vs… — Customs and Excise | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Central Excise Appeal No. 189 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Central Excise Appeal No. 189 of 2010 Date of decision: 5.1.2011

¶5

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I ...Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s J.K.Khalsa Steel Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

¶12

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') seeking to raise the following substantial question of law:-

¶13

“i) Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in restoring the appeal of the respondent to its original number beyond six months?

¶14

ii) Whether the Tribunal is empowered to recall its own order under the provisions of Central Excise law?”

¶15

Against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against levy of penalty which is more than ` 96 lacs. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.5.2009 against which the assessee filed an application for

¶16

Central Excise Appeal No. 189 of 2010 -2-

¶17

restoration pointing out the misunderstanding on account of which the assessee could not appear earlier. Satisfied with the explanation, the Tribunal restored the appeal for hearing.

¶18

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal could not have restored the appeal after expiry of six month from the date of dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. In the impugned order no such objection appears to have been raised on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal in absence of which the plea cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. Moreover, the appellant is unable to give the date on which the application was filed and the date on which the fact of dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution came to the notice of the assessee. Since huge amount was involved, the Tribunal having been satisfied about the bonafides for the non appearance of the assessee, there is no ground to interfere. No substantial question of law arises.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶20

(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge

¶21

January 05, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. M/S J.K. Khalsa Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. M/S J.K. Khalsa Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Comm. Central Excise Commissionerate, Ldh. Vs M/S Happy Forging, Ldh.

The Commr.of Income Tax Bhd.` Vs Mangat Rai

Commissioner of Central Excise Comm. Ludhiana Vs M/S Jagatjit Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-Ii Vs M/S S.T. Cottex Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Cit Hisar Vs B.B. Singhal

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala Vs M/S Chittosho Motors, Patiala