M/S G.S. Travels vs Cce & St, Lucknow

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal20 January 2015

CitationAppeal No. 88/LKO/2013 dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excis

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appellate authority may dismiss an appeal where the statutory condition of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been complied with, and an appeal against such a dismissal, which rests on non-compliance with that admitted condition, discloses no infirmity warranting interference, so that the stay application and the appeal are liable to be dismissed without examining the merits.

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.Date of Hearing/Order : 20.1.2015

No. ST/COD/52650/2014, ST/Stay/52649/2014 & ST/52127/2014-CU(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 88/LKO/2013 dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow]

For Approval & Signature :

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, 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?

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 G.S. Travels Appellant

Vs.

CCE & ST, Lucknow Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. - for the Appellant

Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. - for the Respondent

Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

F. Order No.50189/2015

Per R.K. Singh :

The appellants have filed condonation of delay application seeking condonation of delay of nine days. Satisfactory cause has been shown in paras 2 and 3 of the application and therefore the COD application is allowed and delay is condoned.

2. The appellants have also filed stay application along with appeal against order in appeal dated 21.12.2013 in terms of which their appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on account of the fact that the appellants had not complied with the requirement of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 inasmuch as the amount ordered to be pre-deposited by the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been deposited.

3. The ld. Advocate contended that they have a strong case on merits and therefore their appeal should be heard.

4. We find that present appeal has been filed against Commissioner (Appeals) final order and not against the order of pre-deposit passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the requirement of Section 35F ibid had not been complied with which is an admitted fact. Thus we find no infirmity in the impugned order which is legal and proper and therefore the appellants stay petition and appeal are dismissed.

Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

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