Shri Ashwin Chimanlal Shah vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/12209/2014, ST/Others/10133/2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with a conditional pre-deposit order, and the tribunal's stated reasoning is that the appellant failed to comply with the stay order and the appellant's late request for extension was not accepted. Where a stay of recovery is granted on condition of pre-deposit, a failure by the appellant to comply with that condition within the time fixed is a sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without proceeding to the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIO-SUR-EXCUS-001-COM-109-13-14 dated 31.01.2014, Passed by Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax Customs, Surat)
Shri Ashwin Chimanlal Shah : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R.
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 06.02.2015
ORDER No. A/10120 / 2015 Dated 06.02.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
By order No. M/15818 of 2014 dated 26.11.2014, the applicant was directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 42 Lakhs within eight weeks and to report compliance on 27.01.2015 before the Deputy Registrar and the appeal will the taken up for disposal on 04.02.2015, subject to the said compliance is reported. On 04.02.2015, learned Advocate requested for time and the matter was adjourned to 06.02.2015.
2. Today, we find that appellant has filed application on 05.02.2015 for extending the time. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned Advocate. As the appellant has failed to comply with the stay order, we dismiss the appeal for non compliance of the stay order. Miscellaneous application also disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
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