M/S. Bombay Rayon Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad
- CitationAppeal No. : C/12804/2014 [C/ORS/10029/2015]
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 of duty, where the appellant has not complied within the time granted and has sought, without merit, modification of the stay order on the ground of a reference to a Larger Bench; a pending reference is not, of itself, a ground to modify a pre-deposit condition already imposed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIO-09-COMMR-O&A-2014 dated 22.4.2014, Passed by Commr. (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad)
M/s. Bombay Rayon Industries Limited : Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri N.K. Tiwari, Consultant
For Revenue : Shri G.P. Thomas, Authorised Representative
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?
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
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 15.01.2015
ORDER No. A/10063/2015 Dated 15.01.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
By stay order M/14212-14214/2014 dated 29.09.2014 the applicants were directed to pre-deposit 50% of the Customs duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority and report compliance on 24.11.2014. The applicant filed application for modification of the stay order. By order No. M/15233/2014 dated 01.12.2014, the Tribunal dismissed the modification application. It is seen from the said order that the learned counsel seeks some time for compliance of the stay order. On the basis of prayer of the learned counsel, four weeks time was granted for reporting compliance on 01.01.2015.
2. Today, learned Counsel submits that they have again filed a modification application for modification of the stay order on the ground that the issue is referred to the Larger Bench. We do not find any merit in the application filed by the applicant. It is seen that on the earlier occasion, learned counsel sought time for compliance of the stay order. At this stage, we do not find any reason to entertain the modification application. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of stay order. Miscellaneous application filed by the applicant is also dismissed.
(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