Sudha Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 18/2006 (H-II) Cus. dated 28/02/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and C
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution where the appellant fails to appear on the matter being called, no adjournment request is made, and the matter has repeatedly been adjourned at the appellant's request or on the Tribunal's own motion in the interest of justice, with liberty reserved to the appellant to seek revival on showing sufficient cause for its absence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2006 (H-II) Cus. dated 28/02/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Hyderabad.]
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? No 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
SUDHA ENTERPRISES SHOP NO 71, CELLAR SHOPPING MALL, CHENOY TRADE CENTRE, PARK LANE, SECUNDERABAD Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None S.VITTAL SHETTY 1ST FLOOR, CHANDADHEKAR COMPLEX,NO-287, 1ST MAINROAD, GANDHINAGAR.
GUJARAT For the Appellant
Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 15/07/2015
Date of Decision: 15/07/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21569 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
On matter being called neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request, we also note that matter has been repeatedly coming up on record when the same was being adjourned either at the request of the appellant or on its own, in the interest of justice.
2. As appellant has not appeared, we deem it fit to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution with liberty to the appellant to get the same revived on sufficient cause being shown for his absence.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 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