M/S. Khalik Ahmed vs C.C.E & S.T. Kanpur
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/51193/2014 -Ex[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal may be dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition under Section 35F where the appellant has failed to make the amount directed by an earlier stay order, even after an extension has been granted, and has shown no pending challenge to that order; a further extension of the pre-deposit period is not warranted in such circumstances.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. KNP-EXCUS-000-COM-011-13-14 dated: 21.11.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Kanpur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
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 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 Departmental authorities?
M/s. Khalik Ahmed. ...Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E & S.T. Kanpur Respondent
Appearance:
None for the Appellants
Mr. Yashpal Sharma, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing.25.03.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 50928 /2015-Ex(Br)
Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench):
In this case the Tribunal vide stay order no. 33985/2014 dated 18/11/2014 had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. Ten Lakh within a period of 12 weeks for compliance with the provisions of Section 35F and the compliance was to be reported on 26.02.2015.
1.1 On 26.02.2015, when this matter was called for compliance, Sh. Bipin Garg, Ld. Proxy Counsel of Sh. Amit Awasthi, Advocate, representing the appellant pleaded that the appellant could not deposit the directed amount on account of financial hardship and requested for extension of the period for making the pre-deposit which was allowed.
1.2 Today when this matter was called for reporting compliance, none representing the appellant appeared. There is a letter dated 23.03.2015 on record wherein the appellant has informed that he is going to file an appeal against the said order before Honble High Court.
2. Heard the Ld. DR.
3. Since, the appellant have not complied with the Tribunals order dated 18.11.2014 and they have not even file any appeal before Honble Allahabad High Court, we do not deem it fit to grant any further extension for pre-deposit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Rakesh Kumar)
Member (Technical)
(S.K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 1
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