M/S Anuvrat Products And Company vs Cce & St, Raipur

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal27 January 2015

CitationExcise Appeal No. 51233 of 2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition imposed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant having failed to deposit the sum directed by the stay order within the time allowed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNALWest Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.Principal Bench, New DelhiCOURT NO. IIIDATE OF HEARING : 27/01/2015.DATE OF DECISION : 27/01/2015.Excise Appeal No. 51233 of 2014

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 370/RPR-I/2013 dated 13/11/2013 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

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 would 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 :

Department Authorities?

M/s Anuvrat Products and Company Appellant

Versus

CCE & ST, Raipur Respondent

Appearance

None for the appellant.

Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.

CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Final Order No. 50213/2015 Dated : 27/01/2015

Per. Rakesh Kumar :-

The appellant vide stay order No. 54005/2014-EX (BR) dated 18/11/2014 had been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) within a period of four weeks and compliance was to be reported on 31st December, 2014. Today when this matter was called for compliance, none representing the appellant appeared. As per the note dated 29/12/2014 of the Registrar the compliance of the Tribunals order has not been reported. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(Rakesh Kumar)

Member (Technical)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Judicial)

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