Royal Energy Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 197/MAK(197)/COMMR/RGD/13-14 dated 27.3.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, New Mumbai)

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?

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

Royal Energy Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent

Appearance:

None for appellant Shri Rakesh Goyal, 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 for the appellant. This Tribunal vide order No. S/519/14/EB/C-II dated 21.10.2014, had asked the appellant to deposit 50% of the duty in cash within eight weeks and report compliance on 30.12.2014. The case has been listed number of times thereafter and no compliance has been reported so far. It appears that the appellant has filed an appeal before the Honble Bombay High Court and as per the information submitted by the appellant, the appeal is yet to be admitted by the Honble Bombay High Court.

2. Keeping in view the fact that the case has come up for compliance on 26.2.2015, 16.3.2015, 20.4.2015 and 11.5.2015 and the appeal is yet to be admitted by the Honble Bombay High Court, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appellant is free to mention the case after the Honble Bombay High Court decides the issue.

(Pronounced in Court)

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

tvu 1 2