M/S. Pawan Kumar Channdgothia vs Commissioner Of Customs(Port), ...
- CitationAppeal No.C-70227/13
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellant fails to comply with a Tribunal's direction to make the pre-deposit required as a condition for hearing the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed for non-fulfilment of the conditions laid down under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.Kol/Cus/Port/83/2012 dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Port), Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE DR. I.P. LAL, 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. Pawan Kumar Channdgothia Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs(Port), Kolkata Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri K.K.Sanyal, Consultant for the Appellant (s)
Shri s.k.NASKAR, A.C.(A.R.) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Dr. I.P. Lal, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 23.03.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 23.03.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75154/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. Vide order no.77117/2014 dated 13.11.2014 this Tribunal directed the Applicant M/s.Pawan Kumar Chandgothia, Proprietor of M/s.World Vision to deposit Rs.1.00 Lakh and report compliance on 23.03.2015.
2. Shri K.K.Sanyal, ld.Consultant for the applicant has submitted that no instruction has bee received from the applicant about compliance of the said order of this Tribunal.
3. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue submits that since the applicat has failed to comply with the direction of pre-deposit, accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with section 129E of Customs Act, 1962.
4. We agree with the contention of the ld.A.R. for the revenue. Since the applicant had not compliance with the direction of pre-deposit, consequently the appeal is dismissed for non fulfillment of the conditions laid down under section 129 of the customs act, 1962. Appeal dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No. C.A. 70227/13
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