Back
Next 
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
B.C.PATEL, D.A.MEHTA, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE& CUSTOMS – Appellant
Versus
GOYAL SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. – Respondent
CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS GOLD CONTROL AP No 33 of 2001
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS PJ DAVAWALA
For the Respondents: MR CHETAN K PANDYA
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS PJ DAVAWALA
For the Respondents: MR CHETAN K PANDYA
Failure to annex required documents leads to application rejection under Central Excise Act.
Headnote:This case involves the application of Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs filed an application for verification of documents necessary for the appeal but failed to annex required documents. The court found that the neglect in providing documentation by the Advocate could not be excused, resulting in the rejection of the application. The pivotal issues considered were whether the documents were adequately verified prior to the appeal and the responsibilities of counsel. The court concluded that the application is rejected due to lack of proper documentation.
JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL) 1The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-1 has filed this application under the provisions contained in Section 35H(1) of Central Excise Act ,1944 read with Section 218(1) of Central Excise Rules,1944.
The application is on verification. Paragraph 10 of the application reads as under :
- "10.The documents of Copies 1.OIO No.65/MP/94 specified below (the Dt.26.12.94. translation in English of the documents, where necessary is annexed) be 2.CEGAT Order No. forwarded to the High Court C-I/64/WZB/2001 with the statement of the dated case. 08.01.2001." 2Though in the verification it is stated that these two documents are annexed, the learned Counsel could not point out annexures with the application.
- Along with application,Annexure "A" and Annexure "B" are tendered which are referred in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the form of the application made under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act,1944. Thus, mechanically the papers are filed in the High Court. When the Court after scrutinizing put the question the learned Advocate very lightly stated that by mistake or by oversight the documents are not annexed and therefore the time may be given. This cannot be permitted. It was the duty of the Advocate who filed the application to be more careful and vigilant, more particularly, when the Advocate is dealing with the matter pertaining to the Revenue, the better care is required to be taken. Verification is dated 9/4/2001 and till the matter is called out it seems that the papers have not been examined otherwise the learned Advocate would have been known that these two documents are not annexed. Therefore,the application is rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
- Sd/-Sd/- (B.C.Patel, J)(D.A.Mehta,J) m.m.bhatt
