The Commissioner Municipal ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 65/2012 dated 21/11/2012 passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and S
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal as defective where the defects pointed out by the Registry in its defect memo have not been removed by the appellant, and the appellant, despite repeated listings, does not appear to remove them or to make submissions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 65/2012 dated 21/11/2012 passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax , VISAKHAPATNAM-I (Appeal) ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K 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
The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Kakinada EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-i CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 23/09/2015
Date of Decision: 23/09/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21989 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Vide defect memo dated 3.1.2013 issued by the Registry, certain defects were pointed out in the appeal with direction to the appellants to remove the same. Thereafter, the matter has to come up on record a number of times and was being adjourned as appellants were not represented. On matter being called today, the appellant is again unrepresented. We also note that the defects pointed out by the Registry do not stand removed by the appellant. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as defective.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ASHOK K ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv
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