M/S. Kochin Kagaz Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 361/2006 CE dated 20/06/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Exc
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal, which had been pending for about eight years and repeatedly listed without the appellant appearing or seeking adjournment, may be dismissed for non-prosecution where the appellant is not pursuing it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 361/2006 CE dated 20/06/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin.]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 377/206 CE dated 23/06/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin.]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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
M/s. KOCHIN KAGAZ LTD. THAIKATTUKARA, P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST, KERALA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax COCHIN-CCE C R BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 018. KERALA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None P. SREEDHARAN NO-57/2538A, II FLOOR, KAKIKODE WARRIAM, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN COCHIN - 682016 KERALA For the Appellant
Mr. Ajay Saxena, Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 23/09/2015
Date of Decision: 23/09/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21987-21988 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
On matter being called today, neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request. We also note from the records that matter has been repeatedly coming up on board and appellants have not represented.
2. The appeal is almost 8 years old and cannot be kept on record. As such, we are of the view that appellant is not pursuing the appeal, the same is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ASHOK K ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv
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