M/S.W.H. Wintech Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Jaipur-I
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/57343/2013-EX[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the stay order directing deposit has not been complied with within the time fixed, and the pendency of a writ petition challenging the stay order before the High Court does not by itself excuse that non-compliance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.APPL/JPR-I/CE/BW/ 133/ VI/2012/2558 dated 16.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur-I]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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.W.H. Wintech Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Jaipur-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.I.C. Joshi, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri.Yashpal Sharma, DR
Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 24/02/2015
Final ORDER NO. 50537/2015
PER: RAKESH KUMAR
The appellant vide stay order dated 29.04.2014 had been directed to deposit pre-deposit of Rs.20,07,725/- towards duty and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards penalty for compliance with the provisions of section 35 F within a period of 8 weeks and compliance was to be reported on 27.06.2014.
2. Today when this matter called for reporting compliance, Shri I.C. Joshi, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, appeared and pleaded that the appellant have filed an appeal against the stay order before Honble Rajasthan High Court and the same is still pending and has not come for hearing. In view of this, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35 F. The appellant are at liberty to file restoration application, if the final outcome of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant before Honble Rajasthan High Court is in their favour.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(S.K.MOHANTY) (RAKESH KUMAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0
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