Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. S.K. Exports vs Commissioner Of Customs (C.S.I. ... on 21 October, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Application No. C/S/94279/13-Mum. In Appeal No. C/86242/13-Mum. (Arising out of Interim Order-in-Appeal No. 54/Mumbai-III/2013 dated 16.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai-III ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K.Jain, Member (Technical) ============================================================
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?
============================================================= M/s. S.K. Exports :
Appellant VS Commissioner of Customs (C.S.I. Airport) Mumbai :
Respondent Appearance Adjournment Request for Appellant Shri M.S. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President
Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 21/10/2013
Date of decision : 21/10/2013
ORDER NO.
Per : S.S. Kang
Heard the Ld. A.R.
2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, the appellant asked for adjournment.
3. We find that the present appeal is filed against the interim order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 129E of the Customs Act. Therefore the request for adjournment is declined. We find that vide impugned order directed to the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.30 lakhs for hearing of the appeal. The present order is passed under 129E of the Customs Act and no appeal lies to Tribunal against the order passed under Section 129E of the Act. Further we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dt. 9.5. 2013 dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the condition of the stay order, as the present impugned order is merged with the final order. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal.
4. The stay application as well as appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated in court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President Sm ??
??
??
??
2