M/S. M.R.S. Leather Exports Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...
- CitationAppeal No.82/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal, the accompanying stay application and a miscellaneous application for abuse of process where the appellant, by repeated non-appearance on listed dates, adjournment requests unsupported by a valid authority to appear, and failure to file the power of attorney, has been found to be adopting dilatory tactics that cause loss to Revenue and prevent recovery of the duty demanded.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.82/2013 (M-III), dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s. M.R.S. LEATHER EXPORTS PVT. LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (SERVICE TAX), CHENNAI - III RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri R. Srinivasan No Vakalat on file for M/s. S. Sridhar & A.S. Sriraman Cons.
For the Respondent Shri R. Subramaniyan AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honbe Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of hearing/decision 10-02-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40158 / 2015
Per D.N. Panda:
Appeal in this case filed in Tribunal on 1st August, 2013 was against adjudication raising service tax demand of Rs.37,60,273/- which was confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Even though stay application was fixed for hearing as early as 02.08.2013, 20.11.2013 and 06.05.2014, appellant did not turn up to cause appearance. Therefore on 8.08.2014, Tribunal passed an ex parte stay order directing the appellant to make pre-deposit of Rs.37,60,273/-. Compliance was directed to be reported on 9th October, 2014.
2. On the above circumstances, a miscellaneous application was filed on 07.10.2014 praying for granting an opportunity of hearing setting aside the ex parte stay order. But when the matter again came up before the Bench on 11.11.2014, there was no appearance by the appellants. An auditor Shri A Ramu appeared before the Bench and sought adjournment of the matter on the ground that the counsel on record was engaged in the Madras High Court. Matter was accordingly adjourned to 09.02.2015. On 09.02.2015 it was further adjourned to 10.02.2015.
3. Today Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant says that he is yet to get the power of attorney from his client and the same will be filed in due course. The chronology of events stated above depicts that the appellant is adopting dilatory tactics causing loss to Revenue and has also prevented it to recover its legitimate dues. Therefore, the miscellaneous application, so also the stay application and appeal are dismissed for abusing process of law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 16-02-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 10.02.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 11.02.2015
Fair Order Typing 16.02.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
2 ST/MISC/42357/2014 and ST/41644/2013
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