M/S Singla Polymers vs Cce, Delhi Iii

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal29 July 2015

CitationExcise Appeal No. 54076 of 2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the condition of pre-deposit imposed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as directed by the Tribunal's earlier stay order, the appellant having neither appeared nor furnished proof of deposit when the matter was called.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNALWest Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.Principal Bench, New DelhiCOURT NO. IIDATE OF HEARING : 29/07/2015.DATE OF DECISION : 29/07/2015.Excise Appeal No. 54076 of 2014

[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 52/SA/CCE/2014 dated 24/04/2014 passed by The Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi III, Gurgaon.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, 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 would 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 :

Department Authorities?

M/s Singla Polymers Appellant

Versus

CCE, Delhi III Respondent

Appearance

None for the appellant.

Shri R.K. Grover, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52369/2015 Dated : 29/07/2015

Per. Ashok Jindal :-

Vide stay order No. 51477/2015 dated 21/04/2015, M/s Singla Polymers was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks as a condition of hearing of this appeal.

2. On matter being called today for ascertaining compliance with the above order, neither anybody appeared nor there is any compliance report on record. We accordingly dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act readwith the stay order referred (supra).

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

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