M/S. Baroda Rayons Corporation Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/11115-11116/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeals are liable to be dismissed where the appellant has failed to comply with a stay order conditioning the hearing of the appeal on pre-deposit of the stipulated amount, and where the period for compliance has already been extended without the condition being fulfilled.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIO-72-73/DEMAND/2012 & OIO-70-71/DEMAND/2012 both dated 28.02.2013, Passed by Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax , Surat)
M/s. Baroda Rayons Corporation Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : None For Respondent (s) : Shri G.C. Prajapati, A.R.
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 06.02.2015
ORDER No. A/10115-10116/2015 Dated 06.02.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
By stay order No. M/13911-13912 of 2014 dated 21.08.2014, the applicant was directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 25 Lakh, on or before 24.11.2014.
2. It is seen from the records that by order No. M/15220 of 2014 dated 01.12.2014, the period of compliance of stay order was extended further for twelve weeks and the compliance was to be reported on 04.02.2015. On 04.02.2015, learned Advocate by letter dated 05.02.2015 informed that they have deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- and requested for time to deposit the balance amount. The matter was again adjourned to 06.02.2015. We find that despite the stay order dated 27.08.2014, the bench had extended the period for compliance by twelve weeks and even then the appellant has not complied with the stay order. In view of that, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance of stay orders.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
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