M/S. Ongc Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 21/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal was dismissed as defective and not maintainable where the appellant, despite being issued a defect memo requiring payment of the correct filing fee and stay petition fee, failed to remove the defects over repeated listings and did not appear, so the appeal cannot be admitted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 21/2012 (V-II) ST dated 27/04/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, 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. ONGC LTD GODAVARI BHAVAN, BASE COMPLEX, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G DIST AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs VISAKHAPATNAM-II CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 035. ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None G.R. KUMAR AND CO. NO.9, MERRY LIFE APPARTMENTS, DOCTOR'S COLONY, PEDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530017 AP For the Appellant
Mr. K.T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 16/06/2015
Date of Decision: 16/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21356 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
On matter being called, neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request. From records, we find that the appellants were issued a defect memo by the Registry on 22.8.2012 for paying the correct amount of fee for filing the appeal as also the stay petition. Thereafter the matter had come up on record number of times and it was seen that neither the defects stand removed nor the appellant was causing any appearance.
2. In view of the above, we find that inasmuch as the appeal is defective and the appellants have not availed of the opportunity to rectify the said defects, the same cannot be admitted. Hence we dismiss the appeal as defective and not maintainable. (Order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY 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