TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms dismissal of Revenue's appeal delay applications, stresses compliance. Board allows reapplication post dismissal.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II Versus Kay Iron Works Pvt Ltd</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II Versus Kay Iron Works Pvt Ltd - TMI Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals by Revenue.2. Review of order in respect of a specific entity.3. Permission to file an appeal against a specific entity.4. Upholding of Tribunal's order by the High Court.5. Requirement of producing a review order under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:1. The Revenue filed applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals. The Tribunal had earlier declined to condone the delay in appeals against a specific respondent, citing lack of sufficient cause. The High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable due to a lack of independent application of mind in the order of sanction. The High Court granted permission to file an appeal against a particular entity and stated that if the Board grants permission, the dismissal of the condonation of delay application would not be an obstacle. The High Court emphasized that any sanction should comply with statutory provisions.2. The present applications were filed following the High Court's order. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the applications for condonation of delay regarding the specific respondents. However, it was noted that if the Board allows an appeal, the dismissal of the delay application would not hinder the process, allowing the petitioner to reapply. The applications were filed based on a letter from the Director (Judicial) indicating the Board's permission for filing separate applications related to the specific respondents.3. Despite opportunities granted, the Revenue failed to produce a review order as required under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the specific respondents. As no order was presented by the Revenue, the Tribunal found no merit in the applications. Consequently, the condonation of delay applications was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeals as well.This detailed analysis outlines the sequence of events regarding the condonation of delay, review orders, permissions for filing appeals, and the consequences of failing to produce necessary documentation under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
TaxTMI 