Sri Kishore Kumar Mahapatra vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Ranchi
- Case No.Excise Appeal No.E/75042/2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is liable to dismissal for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the appellant, despite a defect memo issued by the Registry directing compliance, fails to make the required pre-deposit of the confirmed duty and penalty before the appeal is entertained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.61-65/RAN/2014 dated-14/07/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi)
For approval and signature of:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE 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?
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?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities ?
Sri Kishore Kumar Mahapatra APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise, Ranchi RESPONDENT(S) APPEARANCE
NONE FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S. K. Naskar, A.C. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 24/06/2015
ORDER NO._ FO/A/75318/2015 Per DR.D.M. MISRA None present for the applicant.
2) Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that this is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty. Applicant has filed appeal and stay application on 15th January, 2015. He has submitted that even though demands confirmed and penalty imposed in the impugned order, the applicant had failed to comply with the mandatory conditions of pre-deposit as laid down in the amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is his submission that since the applicant has not complied, therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
3) We find force in the contention of the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue. In spite of defect memo issued by the Registry for compliance with the mandatory condition of pre-deposit, the applicant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of CEA, 1944.. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of CEA. S.P. disposed off.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 30/06/2015 Sd/- 30/06/2015 (DR.I.P.LAL) (DR. D.M. MISRA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
k.b/-
Excise Appeal No.E/75042/2015
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