Skip to content


Kota Box Manufacturing Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1984)(15)ELT463TriDel
AppellantKota Box Manufacturing Company
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....the interpretation of notification no. 46/71 dated 24-4-1971, and tariff item 17(2) of the central excise tariff. though he has taken this as a ground before the asstt. collector but in the revision application, this fact does not find mention specifically. these are important questions of law and, therefore, he be allowed to amend the revision application or be permitted to file a supplementary application.4. he also alleged that inadvertently he has made the collector of central excise (appeals), new delhi as respondent instead of the collector of central excise, jaipur as the case relates to kota, which is within the jurisdiction of the collector of central excise, jaipur.5. we have heard shri r.k. jain, the consultant for the applicant and shri a.k. jain, s.d.r. and gone through the.....
Judgment:
1. M/s. Kota Box Manufacturing Co. Kota (hereinafter called the 'applicant') filed a revision application to the Central Government, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi on 22-2-1978 and the same was transferred to this Tribunal under section 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and as such was treated as appeal.

2. During the course of the proceedings Shri R.K. Jain, Consultant moved an application for amendment of the pleadings under rules 3 and 11 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

3. As per his allegations, the C.E.G.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1982 have been brought into force w.e.f. 11-10-1982. Those rules lay down the manner in which the grounds of the appeal are to be set-forth. The case of the appellants from the very beginning rest upon the interpretation of notification No. 46/71 dated 24-4-1971, and tariff item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. Though he has taken this as a ground before the Asstt. Collector but in the revision application, this fact does not find mention specifically. These are important questions of law and, therefore, he be allowed to amend the revision application or be permitted to file a supplementary application.

4. He also alleged that inadvertently he has made the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi as respondent instead of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur as the case relates to Kota, which is within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.

5. We have heard Shri R.K. Jain, the Consultant for the applicant and Shri A.K. Jain, S.D.R. and gone through the record.

6. It is settled principle of law that the amendment in the pleadings should be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and even at the second appellate stage, if such amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case and do not prejudice the interest of the opposite party.

7. In this case, the entire case of the appellants is based on the interpretation of notification No. 46/71, dated 24-4-1971 and the tariff item No. 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and these are important questions of law involved in this appeal. No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party, if the applicant is allowed to amend the memorandum of appeal by specifically incorporating these legal aspects.

8. Regarding the mentioning of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur as a respondent instead of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, no prejudice would also be caused to the respondent as this amendment is only with respect to the procedural matter based on the jurisdiction.

9. Under these circumstances, we allow the application filed by the applicant. The supplementary memorandum of appeal may be filed accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //