Synoprene Polymers Pvt Ltd vs Commissioners Of Central Excise, ...

Passed by : Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-DAMAN

Synoprene Polymers Pvt Ltd Appellant (s)

Vs.

Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs Respondent (s) and Service Tax-DAMAN

Represented by : None Represented by : Shri S K Shukla (AR)

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon.ble Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 01/01/2015

ORDER No. A/10154 / 2015 dtd 1/1/2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das,

The instant appeal alongwith stay application are listed today as For Mention. The registry of the Tribunal issued defect notice dtd 1.9.2014 and reminders dtd 30.9.2014, 11.11.2014 and 25.11.2014 to remove the defects in the appeal. The Asstt. Registrar by notice dtd 22.12.2014 directed the appellant to appear before the Bench on 1.1.2015.

2. Today nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. It is seen from the record that Ex. Director to the appellant company submitted a letter dtd 28.11.2014 alongwith letter dtd 22.11.2014 issued by the Official Liquidator, Honble High court of Bombay addressed to this Tribunal informing that the appellant company is in liquidation and Official Liquidator was appointed as Liquidator under the Companies Act 1956 as per order dtd 12.6.2014 passed company petition dtd 11.9.2013 by the Honble Bombay High Court.

3. On perusal of the defects notice issued by the registry of this Tribunal to the appellant company that there is various defects has been noted as under :

a) No signature in verification in the Stay Application

b) Appeal is not supported with certified copy (original copy or copy duly authenticated by the concerned department) of above mentioned )-1-A No GMN-EXCUS-000-APP-67-14-15 dated 29/5/2014 in 1st set as per rule 8(3) read with rule 2(f) of CESTATY procedure rules  1st Set.

c) The appellant has not submitted proof of mandatory deposit as per provisions of Section 35F(iii) read with explanation of the Central Excise Act 1944 as amended by the Finance (no.2) Act 2014.

4. By letter dtd 28.11.2014, Ex Director of the appellant company informed that Shri B J Shinde, Asstt Official Liquidator appointed by the Honble Bombay High Court by letter dtd 28.1.2014 addressed to this Tribunal, whereby it was requested to file claim in Form 60 with official liquidator. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case the relevant portion of the letter dtd 21.1.014 of the Asstt. Official Liquidator, Honble High Court Bombay is reproduced below :

 With reference to subject cited above, I have to inform you that the Honble High Court, Bombay vide order dated 12.6.2014 passed in Company Petition No 119 of 2013,, presented by M/s Bhansali Engineering Polymers Limited (Petitioners) the official Liquidator has been appointed as the Provisional Liquidator of the said company with usual powers under the companies Act 1956 and subsequently by an order dated 19.8.2014 the company was ordered to be would up and the Official Liquidator was appointed as liquidator thereof with usual powers under the companies Act 1956.

The Ex-Director of the Company (in liquidation) brought to the notice of this office that a DEFECT NOTICE issued by you dated 30.9.2014 top the company (in liquidation) directed to make payment certain amount as duty penalty. In this regard since the company is in liquidation you are requested to file your claim in Form No 66 with Official Liquidator.

5. It is seen from the record that the appellant company filed appeal alongwith the stay application against the impugned order, which is unsigned by the appellant company. The Registry of the Tribunal issued the defect notice directing the appellant company to remove the defects and no step was taken by them. Apart from that, as per amended provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act 1944, the Tribunal may entertain the appeal subject to deposit of 10% of duty or penalty.

6. As per the amended provisions, the Tribunal shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant has deposited 10% of the duty, in case by duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty or such penalty is in dispute on decision or appeal against. It is noted that as per the defect notice of the registry, the appellant failed to produce the proof of mandatory deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 as amended. So, Tribunal cannot entertain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, the stay application is also disposed.

7. It is seen from the letter dtd 21.11.2014 the Asstt Official Liquidator, Honble Bombay High Court requested to file the claim in Form No 66 to the Official Liquidator in respect of the present dues. Hence, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Daman, is directed to take necessary steps for claiming the dues. Ld Authorised Representative is also directed pursue this matter for taking necessary steps to forward this order to the concerned Commissioner for taking necessary steps.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

swami

??

??

??

??

4