Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Chaudhrana Steel (P) Ltd. Jaunpur v. The Commissioner Of Central Excise, Alld. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 50 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4412 (19 October 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.37

Central Excise Appeal No. 50 of 2005

M/s Chaudhrana Steel (p) Limited, Jaunpur vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad.  

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Mrs. M.Chaudhary, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 1st October, 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi rejecting the application seeking rectification of mistake in the final order dated 24th September, 2003 passed by the Tribunal.

We have heard Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before the Tribunal a specific argument to the effect that the Commissioner of Central Excise has ignored the invoices and the drawings of the furnace while fixing the capacity of the furnace as 3.2376 MT. was raised by its counsel. However the Tribunal has not recorded any finding with regard to the said argument, which was a mistake apparent on the face of record and, therefore the same should have been rectified. The argument proceeds on a misconceived notion inasmuch as from a perusal of the order dated 24th September, 2003 passed by the Tribunal, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the Application No. 97479 of 2005 along with the memorandum of appeal, we find that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that when the case was called none had appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. Thus the plea that specific argument was raised before the Tribunal by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is wholly incorrect and is not borne out from the record. So far as the question that while fixing the capacity of furnace as 3.2376 MT. the Commissioner of Central Excise had ignored the invoice and drawings of the furnace which shows the capacity of the furnace as 3 MT, no finding has been recorded is concerned, we find that the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of the order dated 24th September, 2003 had noted the grounds taken by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and had dealt with in paragraph 3 on the basis of the physical verification by the authorities. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding.

In view of the foregoing discussions, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application seeking rectification. The appeal is devoid of merit, which is hereby dismissed.






Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.