) M/S. Vishal Distributors vs 4)Commr. Of Customs, C.E. & Service Tax
- CitationAppeal No. E/75478/15 , Appeal No. E/75626/2015, ST/75619/2015, ST-75637/15
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal is filed after the amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 took effect, the appellant must deposit seven and a half percent of the confirmed demand as a condition of hearing the appeal; an appellant who fails to make that deposit is liable to have the appeal dismissed for non-compliance with the amended Section 35F.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M.A. No. 75382/15, S.P. Nos.-75495/2015, 75492/2015, 75505/15 AND Appeal No. E/75478/15 , Appeal No. E/75626/2015, ST/75619/2015, ST-75637/15
Sl.No.1) Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CCE/SHILLONG No.04/2014 dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. (Vishal Distributors)
Sl.No.2) Arising out of Order-in-Original No.15/Commr./2015 dated 04.03.2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur (M/s. Naredi International (P) Ltd.)
Sl. No. 3) Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 04/Commr./ST-II/Kol/2014-15 dated 18/03/2015 passed by the Commr. of Service Tax-II, Kolkata) (M/s. LCL Logistix (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata)
Sl. No. 4) Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 22/Commr./SLG/14-15 dated 31/03/2015 passed by the Commr. of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax-Silliguri) (M/s. Perfect Technologies)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, 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 should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
1) M/s. Vishal Distributors 2) M/s. Naredi International (P) Ltd. 3) M/s. Logistix (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata 4) M/s. Perfect Technologies Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
1)Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong 2)Commissioner of Central Excise, JSR (Naredi International (P) Ltd. 3)Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata (M/s. LCL Logistix (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kol)
4)Commr. of Customs, C.E. & Service Tax Silliguri
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri S.C. Jana, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Kumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent (s) (For Vishal Distributors)
Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant(s) Sri A. Kumar, A.C. (A.R) for the Respondent (s) (For Naredi International (P) Ltd.
Shri B.J. Saha, Assistant Manager for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Kumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent (s) (Ms. LCL Logistix (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata
NONE for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Kumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent (s) (M/s. Perfect Technologies)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 29.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 29.09.2015
ORDER NOFO/A/75549-52/2015
\
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
Heard the respective advocates/consultants and the Revenue.
2. The ld. AR for the Revenue submits that all these Appeals have been filed after 06.08.2014 and Appellants have not deposited seven and half percent of the confirmed demand as per the amended Section 35F of CEA, 1944; hence these Appeals are liable for dismissal for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. We agree with the contention of the ld.AR for the Revenue; since the Appellants have not deposited the required amount, accordingly, all the Appeals are liable for dismissal for non-compliance with the provisions of amended section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the Appeals are dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
Sd/- 9/10/15 Sd/- 9/10/15
(H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
k.b/-
Appeal No. E/75478/15 , Appeal No. E/75626/2015, ST/75619/2015, ST-75637/15
3
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