Impressario Event Marketing Company ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 224-2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition: where the Tribunal has directed the appellant to deposit a stated percentage of the duty demanded as a condition of stay, and the appellant has failed to make that deposit, the appeal may be dismissed under the Tribunal's powers under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 224-2013 dated 07/10/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), COCHIN ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI 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?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Impressario Event Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor,chaithanya Building,s.a.road, COCHIN - 682016 KERALA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Cochin-cce C R BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, - 682018 KERALA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Thomas Kuriyan, Advocate MENON & PAI P.B. NO.1911 IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682018 KERALA For the Appellant
Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 01/06/2015
Date of Decision: 01/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21245 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Vide stay order No.20474/2015 dt. 11/02/2015, the appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the tax demanded within a period of eight weeks.
2. On matter being called for ascertaining compliance, learned advocate fairly agrees that the said order has not been complied with by the appellant. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act read with the stay order referred supra. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja..
2
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