Shri B Sasikumar vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...
- CitationAppeal No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-146-13-14 dated 26/02/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Co
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order that required pre-deposit of the duty amount with interest, as Section 35F of the Central Excise Act requires; the Tribunal holds that a party who fails to comply with a conditional pre-deposit direction may have its appeal dismissed on that ground.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-146-13-14 dated 26/02/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Cochin]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters 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 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Shri B Sasikumar Ashithalavam, Eravipuram P.O. KOLLAM 691011 (Kerala) Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Trivandrum T.C.NO.26/334(1&2), I.C.E BHAVAN,PRESS CLUB ROAD, TRIVANDRUM 695001. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant. Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, A.R. For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 03/09/2015 Date of Decision: 03/09/2015 CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21827 / 2015
PER ARCHANA WADHWA
Vide stay order No. 21114/2015 dated 16.07.2015, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3.3 lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs thirty thousand only) along with proportionate interest within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On matter being called today for ascertaining compliance, neither anybody appeared nor is there any compliance report on records. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with the stay order referred supra. (Pronounced in open court)
(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
/vc/
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