M/S. Kys Manufacturers & Exporters Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...
- CitationAppeal No.EA-75502/15
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal is filed after the amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (effective 6 August 2014), the appellant must make the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded, and failure to comply with that requirement, including after a defect memo has been issued, is a ground for dismissing the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.26/Commr/2014 dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur.)
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. KYS Manufacturers & Exporters Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant (s)
Shri M.Chattopadhyay, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 16.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 16.09.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75484/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
Heard both sides.
2. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that in spite of issuance of defect memo for compliance with the condition of predeposit of 7.5% of duty as the appeal has been filed after 6th August, 2014, the Appellant did not comply with the said defect memo. He submits that in view of amended Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Appellant is required to deposit the said amount. It is his submission that as the Appellant had not complied with the said provision, their appeal is liable for dismissal.
3. We find force in the submission of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue. Accordingly, we dismiss their appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appeal dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No.EA-75502/15
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