Nirmal Kumar Rathi vs Commissioner Of Customs (Imports)
- CitationAppeal No. C/85734 to 85738 and 86026/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeals are dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition: where the appellant has been directed to make a pre-deposit as a condition of pursuing the appeal, has been given a final opportunity to comply or to produce an order of the High Court staying that direction, and has done neither, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal on that ground alone.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT No. I
Appeal No. C/85734 to 85738 and 86026/14
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 137/2013/CAC/CC)I)/ AB/Gr.II B dated 29.11.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
================================================
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 : No 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?
Nirmal Kumar Rathi S.G. Sales Corporation Rakesh Rathi S. Gopal Rathi Laminate Distributors (India) Appellant Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri C. Nanda Gopal, Advocate for appellant Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy Commissioner (AR) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 16.04.2015 Date of Decision: 16.04.2015
ORDER NO
Per: M.V. Ravindran
When all these matters were called out for ascertaining compliance of pre-deposit order of this Bench vide stay order dated 06.06.2014, learned Counsel submits that the appellants have preferred an appeal before the Honble High Court against the stay order as also the dismissal of the modification applications. It is his submission that further time may be granted to comply with the order or to get an order from the Honble High Court.
2. On perusal of the records, we find that we have directed the appellants to deposit some amounts and report compliance on 13.08.2014. Appellants preferred applications for modification of the said order in time which was heard and disposed of on 13.01.2015 granting six weeks time for compliance. But on 25.02.2015 when the matter came up for ascertaining compliance, the learned Counsel sought more time on the ground that their appeal before the Honble High Court is still pending. It was clearly intimated to the learned Counsel that as a last chance we are granting them more time either report compliance or produce a copy of the order of the Honble High Court. The matter was listed today for such compliance.
3. Since there is no compliance nor there is any order from the Honble High Court, we dismiss all the appeals for non-compliance.
(Dictated in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
nsk
??
??
??
??
1 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