TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (6) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rkar, DR, for the Appellant. Shri P.V. Sheth, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (J)]. - 16 Appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot. The Appeals were defective inasmuch as they were not accompanied by the required documents. At the time of hearing of the Stay Applications, directions were made for correcting the defects. In spite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissionerate. On this ground restoration of the Appeals and the stay applications was sought. These applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order No. C-l/2904-2919/WZB/2001, dated 28-9-2001. The Tribunal observed that even at the time of making the application for restoration the Commissioner had not filed then necessary documents. The Bench found the behavior of the Commissioner a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng appeal referred to Annexure-C, no document titled as Annexure-C was enclosed to the said Appeal (since the enclosure did not bear any title)". 4. In the first cited order the Tribunal had mentioned the variety of defects in para 3 thereof. In para 4 the Tribunal had noted that even giving widest possible attitude the bunch of documents filed could not be taken as appeals. It becomes clear....