M/S. Colona Blenders & Bottlers (India) ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...
- CitationAppeal No.S.T. 75028-75030/15
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may not entertain an appeal in a Service Tax matter, filed after the amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax matters by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, where the appellant has not complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement of that section; non-compliance with that requirement, after the Registry has issued a defect memo calling for it, renders the appeal liable to dismissal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.863-865/Pat/S.Tax/Appeal/2014 dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE DR. I.P. LAL, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
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 Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s. Colona Blenders & Bottlers (India) Pvt.Ltd. Shri Shiv Kumar Bhagat Smt.Renu Devi Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna Respondent (s)
Appearance:
NONE for the Appellant (s)
Shri S.N.Mitra, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Dr. I.P. Lal, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 29.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 29.06.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75357-75359/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. None present despite notice. Heard the ld.AR for the Revenue.
2. The appeal is filed on 13.1.2015 i.e. after amendment to Section 35F of Central Excise act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax matters by virtue of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994.
3. The ld.AR for the Revenue submits that the Applicant had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 35F by depositing the requisite amount. Accordingly their appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. We find force in the contention of the ld.AR for the Revenue. Also from the records we find that the defect memo has been issued by the Registry to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax matter. However, the appellants have not complied with the said provision. Consequently the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with amended section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax matters.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No. S.T. 75028-75030/15
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