M/S.Kalinga Sponge Iron Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...
- CitationAppeal No.EA-75525/15
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appeal to the Tribunal filed after the amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is liable to dismissal where the appellant has not complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement of that section, and the Registry's issuance of a defect memo calling for compliance does not dispense with that requirement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.ROU-Excus-000-COM-134-14-15 dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rourkela.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, 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.Kalinga Sponge Iron Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rourkela Respondent (s)
Appearance:
NONE for the Appellant (s)
Shri A.KBiswas, Supdt.(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 28.09.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75525/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. None present despite notice. Heard the ld.AR for the Revenue.
2. The appeal is filed on 01.06.2015 i.e. after amendment to Section 35F of Central Excise act, 1944.
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 provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appellants have not complied with the said provisions. Consequently the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with amended section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No.EA-75525/15
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