Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 281-284, 399-420 of 2016 and CMP Nos. 2331-2333 and 3027-3048 of 2016. Case: Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Vs B.S. Garg. Chennai (Madras) High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 281-284, 399-420 of 2016 and CMP Nos. 2331-2333 and 3027-3048 of 2016
Party NameCommissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Vs B.S. Garg
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Rajnish Pathiyil, CGSC
JudgesV. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran, JJ.
IssueCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35B
Citation2016 (339) ELT 518 (Mad)
Judgement DateFebruary 29, 2016
CourtChennai (Madras) High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases

Judgment:

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

  1. These appeals, filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arise out of the common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2014 (300) E.L.T. 413 (Tribunal)] refusing to condone the delay of more than 2200 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

  2. Heard Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Department.

  3. These appeals arise out of three sets of cases. In one set of cases, a proprietary concern by name M/s. Indian Steel and Allied Products, Chennai, its sole proprietor B.S. Garg, a broker, who arranged for selling their goods and two persons, who sold the goods under invoices, became the noticees. In the second set of cases, a partnership firm by name M/s. Goyal Ispat Udyog, which now appear to have been converted into a proprietary concern, was the main noticee. Its proprietor Sriram Goyal, four brokers of the proprietary concern and several persons, who issued bills for selling goods, were made noticees in the second set of cases. In the third set of cases, a partnership firm by name M/s. Indira Ispat Udyog was the main noticee. Two of its partners were the other noticees. Three brokers and about 6 persons, who issued bills, were made co-noticees.

  4. Show cause notices were actually issued in all the three sets of cases way back on 2-6-1999. The notices resulted in Orders-in-Original being passed on 27-4-2004. As against the Orders in Original, the Department filed only three main appeals in E/380/2005 as against M/s. Indian Steel and Allied Products, E/436/2005 as against M/s. Goyal Ispat Udyog and E/483/2005 as against M/s. Indira Ispat Udyog. These appeals, filed in the year 2005, came up for final hearing in the year 2012.

  5. In the course of arguments of the appeals, taken up in 2012, the Special Counsel for the Department seems to have realised that the proprietor/partner as well as brokers and persons, who issued bills, were left out and appeals against the dropping of proceedings against them had been omitted to have been filed. Therefore, with a huge delay of 2249 days, the Department filed fresh appeals against the partners/proprietors/brokers as well as persons, who issued the bills.

  6. In a very brief common affidavit filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay, the Department claimed that the appeals were filed with a delay upon the advice of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial