M/S Twenty Firstcentury Printers Ltd vs Commissioners Of Central Excise
- CitationAppeal No. : E/475-480/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution, where the appellants' authorised representative, having received the papers only on the morning of hearing, could not produce the authorisation to appear and was not ready to file it, and the Tribunal, noting that the appeals dated from 2007 and that the appellants did not appear serious about disposal, dismissed them on that ground alone.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIO-04/MP/VAPI/2007 dtd 23.1.2007 passed by Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VAPI ]
1. M/s Twenty Firstcentury Printers Ltd ] 2. M/s Accuraform Pvt Ltd ] 3. Shri Saket Kanoria ] 4. Shri Dinesh Chaudhary ] Appellant(s) 5. Shri Rajesh Kejriwal ] 6. Shri Champaklal Prajapati ]
Vs
Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VAPI ] Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri P P Jadeja, Consultant For Revenue : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 19/6/2015 ORDER No. A/10873-10878 / 2015 dtd 19/6/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
Shri P P Jadeja, Learned Consultant, appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that he has received the papers today morning and he is unable to produce the authorisation. He is not ready to file the authorisation.
2. We find that the appeals relate to 2007 and the appellants are not serious for disposal of the appeals. The appellant had not given authorisation to the Learned Consultant for appearance. In view of that, all the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
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