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>Court dismisses appeal challenging tribunal order due to significant delay, lack of evidence, and no substantial legal questions</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I Versus Hindustan Machines & Ors.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I Versus Hindustan Machines & Ors. - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 616 (Del.) Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Availing of exemption by small-scale industry under Notification No. 175/86-CE.Condonation of Delay:The judgment addresses an appeal with a significant delay of 577 days in challenging the final order of the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner's explanation for the delay was the delayed receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order. However, the court found this reason inadequate, citing previous legal precedents emphasizing the need for government bodies to provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays. The court, following established principles, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the application accordingly.Availing of Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE:The core issue in the case pertains to the availing of exemption by a small-scale industry under Notification No. 175/86-CE. The case involved the brand name 'Maharaja' owned by individuals associated with Hindustan Machines (HM), a manufacturer of household goods. The Department alleged misutilization of exemption and clandestine removal of goods to evade excise duty by HM and its sister concerns. The case primarily relied on a single document recovered from a marketing company, Technocrat Marketing P. Ltd. However, the document lacked specifics regarding the goods and failed to establish the allegations conclusively. The court found that the document did not provide sufficient evidence to prove duty evasion against the assessee. After thorough examination of the facts, the court upheld the findings of the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner, concluding that there was no substantial question of law necessitating court intervention. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's decisions regarding the delay in filing the appeal and the substantive issue of availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and outcomes in the case.
TaxTMI 