Godavari Valley Labour Contract Co. Op ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 4/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is liable to be dismissed as defective where the defects pointed out by the Registry in its defect memo have not been removed, and the appellant has failed to appear despite the matter having been adjourned repeatedly in the interest of justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 4/2010 dated 23/01/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Godavari Valley Labour Contract Co. Op Society Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist., Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s)
Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs Visakhapatnam-II Central Excise Building, Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530 035 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Mr. S. Ila, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 15/06/2015 Date of Decision: 15/06/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21416 / 2015
Per: ARCHANA WADHWA
On matter being called today neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request. We note that a defect memo was issued by the Registry on 12.07.2012 referring to certain defects as regards the appeal fees, pagination etc. Thereafter the matter has come on record a number of times and was being adjourned in the interest of justice.
2. As the defects pointed out by the Registry have not been removed till date and the appellant has not been causing appearance, we deem it fit to dismiss the appeal as defective. We order accordingly. (Order pronounced in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
iss
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free