Shri Narasaiah vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 02-2014 dated 28/02/2014 passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and S
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal may be dismissed for non-compliance with a conditional stay order, where the appellant has failed to make the pre-deposit the Tribunal directed as a condition of stay under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02-2014 dated 28/02/2014 passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-I( Appeal) ]
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 Narasaiah H.no.12-640/1, Hanuman Nagar, Mancherial, ADILABAD DIST - 00 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-i KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri B.G.CHIDANANDA URS, Advocate #520, AMRUTH NIVAS, 7TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, RMV 11 STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY, BANGALORE -560094 For the Appellant
Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 06/08/2015
Date of Decision: 06/08/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21788 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Vide Stay Order No.20822/2015 dt. 28/04/2015, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.8 lakhs within a period of twelve weeks.
2. On matter being called for ascertaining compliance, learned advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that the said deposit has not been made. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the Section 35F of Central Excise Act read with the stay order referred to supra. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja.
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