Shri Subodh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Customs, Excise & ...
- CitationAppeal No.75117/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is non-maintainable where the appellant, despite being given a defect memo and a reminder, fails to cure a defect that goes to the root of maintainability, namely non-compliance with the pre-deposit/procedural requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applied to service tax matters by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Tribunal may accordingly dismiss the appeal on that ground.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Arising out of O/O No.VST-2-XAP-230-PAT-2012 dated 04.11.2013 passed by Commr. (Appeals) of Customs, Central Excise & S.Tax, Patna.
For approval and signature:
DR. D. M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the 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 His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities? :
Shri Subodh Kumar
APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Excise & S.Tax, Patna RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE
None for the Appellant (s) Shri S. K. Naskar, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Department
CORAM:
DR. D. M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & PRONOUNCEMENT : 17. 02. 2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75095/2015
Per Dr. D. M. Misra :
None present for the Appellant. Heard the ld.A.R. for the Revenue.
2. Vide a letter dated 10th February, 2015, the Appellant requested for decision of the case on merit. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue, submits that the Appellant was issued with a Defect Memo on 6th February, 2014, directing to comply with the defect recorded at Sl.No.17 of the said Defect Memo within 21 days. A reminder was issued to them on 10th March, 2014, however, no response was received from them. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue, submits that the said defect touches to the very root of the maintainability of appeal, as the Applicant has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to service tax matters by virtue of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994, hence, their Appeal is liable for dismissal.
3. I find force in the submissions of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue. Since, the Appellant had failed to remove the said defect in spite of sufficient time and opportunities having been granted to them, the Appeal is dismissed being non-maintainable. ( Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/ (DR. D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mm
2 S.T. Appeal No.75117/14
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