BALAJI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS Vs. C.C.E. AND CUSTOMS
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
November 14,2014
Balaji Steel Re -Rolling Mills
Appellant
VERSUS
C.C.E. And Customs
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS VS. S CHENNIAPPA MUDALIAR MADURAI [REFERRED TO]Cited Judgements :-
P GANESH, COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-443] [REFERRED TO]DARYAPUR SHETKARI SAHAKARI GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMBAPETH [LAWS(BOM)-2020-11-336] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI AMBIKA ISPAT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. AND CUS., CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
DARYAPUR SHETKARI SAHAKARI GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI [LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-364] [REFERRED TO]
CRAFT WORLD VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-329] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR MOHANTY VS. REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ORI)-2020-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
M/S AVTAR AND COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
MULTIWAL DUPLEX PVT. LTD. VS. C.C.E. [LAWS(CE)-2015-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
AFLOAT TEXTILES (INDIA) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-167] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SHAW VS. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ORI)-2022-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
AFLOAT TEXTILES (INDIA) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-390] [REFERRED TO]
UZHUVA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, ALAPPUZHA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-580] [REFERRED TO]
SAMARJEET SINGH VS. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, C. EX. AND SERVICE TAX [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-161] [REFERRED TO]
MILLENNIUM STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-399] [REFERRED TO]
THE PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. VS. THE MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-326] [REFERRED TO]
LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION VS. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-348] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted
(2.)The sole question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not.
(3.)The Appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of Hot Re-rolled products. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, vide order dated 20.07.1999, re-fixed the annual capacity of production and duty liability of the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.01.2002, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs with a direction to determine the capacity of production in accordance with law after hearing the Appellant. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, once again affirmed the order dated 20.07.1999. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 14.05.2004 passed by the Commissioner of the Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad which was placed for hearing on 22.08.2012. On the very said date, the Appellant as also his counsel were not present. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The restoration application was also dismissed. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad being Central Excise Appeal No. 14 of 2013. The High Court, by order dated 18.01.2014, dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
(2.)The sole question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not.
(3.)The Appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of Hot Re-rolled products. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, vide order dated 20.07.1999, re-fixed the annual capacity of production and duty liability of the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.01.2002, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs with a direction to determine the capacity of production in accordance with law after hearing the Appellant. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, once again affirmed the order dated 20.07.1999. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 14.05.2004 passed by the Commissioner of the Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad which was placed for hearing on 22.08.2012. On the very said date, the Appellant as also his counsel were not present. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The restoration application was also dismissed. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad being Central Excise Appeal No. 14 of 2013. The High Court, by order dated 18.01.2014, dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.