M/S. Pelican Tobacco Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 53750, 53751 & 53752 of 2014 - Ex (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with the Tribunal's stay order, where the appellant has neither complied with a conditional direction to deposit the specified amounts nor appeared to report compliance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 37-39/CE/APPEAL/DLH-IV/2011 dated 21.3.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi IV, Faridabad]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Pelican Tobacco Company Ltd. Appellants
Shri Atul Kumar Singh
Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise . Respondent
Delhi IV
Appearance:
None for the Appellants
Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 12.1.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. A/50035-50037 /2015-Ex(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
Vide Stay order No. 53401 53403/2014 dated 13.10.2014, M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,95,236 and both the Directors were directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- each as a condition of hearing of their appeals within a period of 4 weeks and report compliance on 16.12.2014.
3. When the matter came up today for ascertaining compliance with the above order, neither anybody appeared for the appellant nor is there any compliance on record As such, I am of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non compliance with the provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act read with the stay order passed by the Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed for non-compliance.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
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