Shri Shantilal Mali vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal4 March 2015

CitationAppeal No.C/10688/2014; C/Others/10207/2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal may be dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order that required pre-deposit of the disputed amount, where the appellant fails to report compliance and the application for modification of the stay order is itself dismissed; non-compliance with a conditional stay order is a sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal without going to the merits.

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.C/10688/2014; C/Others/10207/2015 [Arising out of OIO No.KDL/COMMR/35/2013-14, dt.27.09.2013, passed by Commissioner of Customs Kandla]

Shri Shantilal Mali Appellant

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: None For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, A.R.

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, 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. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:04.03.2015

Order No. A/10205 / 2015, dt.04.03.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. Vide Stay Order No.M/15830/2014, dt.26.11.2014, the applicant was directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs within a period of 12 weeks and to report compliance before Deputy Registrar on 26.02.2015. Deputy Registrar will place the file before the Bench for passing appropriate order on 04.03.2015.

2. None appeared on behalf of the applicant. There is no compliance report in the file. It is seen from the records that the applicant filed an application for modification of the stay order. It seems that the applicant is not serious in the matter.

3. Accordingly, the application for modification of stay order is dismissed. The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 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