M/S. United Security Organization Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/51-54/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, where the appellant has repeatedly failed to appear on successive listing dates without seeking adjournment, and the Tribunal infers from this that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal; the merits are not examined.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIO-23/MP/2006 dated 30.11.2006, passed by Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat)
M/s. United Security Organization Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s) M/s. Sunita Consultancy Services
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : None For Respondent (s) : Shri Sameer Chitkara, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble 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?
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, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 09.09.2015
ORDER No. A/11284-11287/2015 Dated 09.09.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
None appears on behalf of the appellant. There is no application for adjournment. Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the matter was adjourned at several times. It is submitted that the issue involved is demand of service tax under the category of Security Services, which is covered in favour of the Revenue in the case of GDA Security Private Limited vs. UOI 2002 (140) ELT 332 (Mad.) and Security Agencies Association vs. UOI 2012 (28) STR 3 (Ker.).
2. We find from the records that the matter was adjourned on 20.05.2015, 23.06.2015, 23.07.2015 and 28.08.2015 as nobody turned up on behalf of the appellants. As the matter is old one and nobody has turned up, it seems that appellant is not interested in pursuing the matters. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
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