Shri Radheshkumar B. Desdai vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal10 August 2015

Case No.Appeal No.E/10881/2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the appellant has not made the mandatory pre-deposit required by Section 35F(iii) read with its Explanation, as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014; financial hardship offered as the reason for non-deposit does not excuse that requirement, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed for non-compliance.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.E/10881/2015 [Arising out of OIO No.SUR-EXCUS-002-CUM-031-14-15, dt.06.01.15, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat]

Shri Radheshkumar B. Desdai Appellant

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-II Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Kuntal Parikh, Advocate For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.08.2015

Order No.A/11193/2015, dt.10.08.2015

Per: P.K. Das

Registry of this Tribunal issued a Show Cause Notice dt.22.06.2015 under Rule 11 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules 1982, directing the Appellant to submit the proof of mandatory deposit as per the provisions of Section 35F (iii) read with Explanation of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014.

2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant submits that they could not make the necessary deposit due to financial crisis. On perusal of the records, we find that on last occasion, the matter was adjourned as the learned Advocate had sought time.

3. As the Appellant failed to make the mandatory pre-deposit as per the said provision, the Tribunal cannot entertain the appeal filed by the Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed for non-submission of proof of mandatory deposit Section 35F (iii) read with Explanation of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb ??

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