M/S Ashapuri Metals Pvt.Ltd vs Cce Surat

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal16 January 2015

CitationAppeal No.C/14203/2013-DB

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with a conditional stay order requiring pre-deposit where the appellant, having been given sufficient time to comply, has taken no steps to comply or sought extension of time.

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

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.C/14203/2013-DB [Arising out of OIO No.SUR-EXCUS-01-COM-007-13-14, dt.12.09.2013, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat]

M/s Ashapuri Metals Pvt.Ltd. Appellant

CCE Surat Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: None For Respondent : Shri G.C. Prajapati, A.R.

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. R.K. SINGH, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:16.01.2015

Order No. A/10073 / 2015, dt.16.01.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. By stay order No.M/13137/2014, dt.23.06.2014, the applicant was directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs within eight weeks and report compliance on 01.09.2014 before the Deputy Registrar, who, after ascertaining the compliance shall place the file before the Bench for passing order on 08.09.2014.

2. On perusal of the records, we find that on 08.09.2014, the matter was adjourned for compliance on 09.10.2014 at the request of the ld.Advocate, as they were proceeding to Honble High Court against the stay order. Further, the matter was adjourned, at the request of the applicant on 18.10.2014, 11.11.2014, 02.12.2014, 04.12.2014, 05.01.2015. Today, nobody turned up on behalf of the applicant. It is seen from the records, the applicant filed a letter dt.15.01.2015 to the Assistant Registrar of this Tribunal that they have deposited a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and requested further time to deposit balance amount.

3. We find that the Tribunal has already given sufficient time for compliance of the stay order. No steps have been taken by the applicant. The applicant has also not filed any application for extension of time for compliance of the stay order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 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