Narendrakumar K. Pahade vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AV (58-61)35, 36, 37, 38/2014 dated 3.4.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Honble Mr. Shyam Sunder Garg, Member (Judicial)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

======================================================

Narendrakumar K. Pahade Appellant Gopal S. Mundada Satish Rathi Adinath Steel Re-rolling Mills

Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent

Appearance:

None for appellant Shri V.K. Agrawal, Additional Commissioner (AR), for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Shyam Sunder Garg, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 11.5.2015 Date of Decision: 11.5.2015

ORDER NO

Per: P.K. Jain

When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. This Tribunal, vide order No. S/148-151/15/EB dated 16.2.2015, had asked appellant No.1 viz. Narendrakumar K. Pahade, to deposit an amount of Rs.96,000/-, appellant No.2 viz. Gopal S. Mundada, to deposit an amount of Rs.95,000/- and appellant No.3 viz. Satish RAthi, to deposit an amount of Rs.2,500/-, within a period of six weeks and report compliance on 13.4.2015. As per the report received from the Registry, the appellant No.1 and 3 have deposited the said amount as per the order passed by this Tribunal. As far as the appellant No.2 is concerned, the appellant has not deposited the said amount.

2. In view of the above factual position, the appeal field by the appellant No.2, viz. Gopal S. Mundada, is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. The appeals of the remaining appellants to come up in their turn.

(Pronounced in Court)

(Shyam Sunder Garg) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)

tvu 1 3