Case Law Details

Case Name : M.R.J. Steels (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Appeal No. E/1366-1367/2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 19/12/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (609) CESTAT Delhi (193)

CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH

M.R.J. Steels (P.) Ltd.

versus

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I

INTERIM ORDER NO. 1/2012-EX(DB)(PB)
APPLICATION NOS. E/STAY/1736-1737/2012
& E/COD/249-250/2012
APPEAL NOS. E/1366-1367/2012

DECEMBER  19, 2012

ORDER

D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Moving the applications for condonation of delay Shri Kamaljeet Singh, learned Counsel mentioned on 17-12-2012 that Registry failed to discharge its duty according to the procedure prescribed by Chapter 4 of Judicial Manuals in respect of receipt of appeal memo for which members of the Bar are harassed.

2. Advancing above cause, President of the Bar Shri R.K. Jain submits today that codified procedure is prescribed by Chapter 4 of Judicial Manuals which is to be read with rule 11(4) of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for harmonious construction of the procedural aspect of filing and scrutiny of appeal by the Registry. Keeping in view statutory right of the appellant the Judicial Manual in Chapter 4 has designed procedure which should not be defeated by the Registry which otherwise deprives appellants to exercise their right to appeal. If there is any defect in appeal, in terms of the procedure prescribed by rule 4.03 of Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual, that defect may be intimated to the appellant for curing the same without compulsion since curable defects do not take away right to appeal. Therefore, such valuable right should not be casually denied on flimsy ground of technicalities without scrutiny according to procedure prescribed by Judicial Manual.

3. Shri Kamaljeet Singh further submits that he was compelled to file application for condonation of delay by the Registry which he has mentioned in Para 7 of Misc. Application No. 249/2012 and 250/2012 in appeal case Nos. 1366-1367/2012. Right of appeal is statutory and curable defect may be removed upon notice from Registry without compulsion by Registry to file delay condonation application.

4. Without dilating the matter further we take note of difficulties expressed by Bar as above. We understand that Bar is an integral part of justice delivery system. We hope members of the Bar shall not be caused hardship by the Registry by a set of procedure not prescribed by Judicial Manual. With this we conclude the matter stating that Registry is to act according to the procedure laid down in Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual and prevent further discontent of Bar.

5. Insofar as COD application as above are concerned, that matter is open for argument by both sides on 21st December, 2012.

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3290)
Type : Judiciary (10309)
Tags : Cestat judgments (798)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *