M/S. Tin Box Company vs Commissioner Of Customs

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 113-116/CE/APPL/ADC/Delhi II/20134560 dated 30.12.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi I]

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. Tin Box Company Appellants

Shri A K Mehra

Shri Aman Mehra

Shri Aditya Vikram Mehra

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs Respondent

Delhi I

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: 16.1.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 50103-50106/2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

Vide Stay order No. 54677  54680 /2014 dated 11.12.2014, the appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- each as a condition of hearing of their appeals within a period of 4 weeks and report compliance on 16.1.2015.

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 appeals are 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