Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Delta Industrial & Technical Services ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order Nos. 20514 - 20515 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: ST/3514/2012, ST/3517/2012-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 46/2012 dated 13/09/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Visakhapatnam] [[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 42/2012 dated 13/09/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Visakhapatnam] Delta Industrial & Technical Services Co-operative Society Ltd. Door No. 76-12-3, Gorashnapeta Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Netaji Educated Un-Employed Cooperative Society Ltd. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs Visakhapatnam-II Central Excise Building, Port Area, Visakhapatnam - 530 035, Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellants Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 20/03/2014 Date of Decision: 20/03/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY When the matters were called for compliance, we find that the CA representing the appellant has written a letter to the Registrar on 18.03.2014. In this letter it has been communicated that the appellants advocate who has to represent the above case is preoccupied with some other work at High Court, so adjournment may be granted and matters may be listed for hearing on 10.04.2014. It is also stated that some other cases where the counsel has to appear have also been listed on that day.
2. It would be appropriate to observe that the letter from the firm on 10.12.2013 seeking adjournment and the letter for another case seeking adjournment are all similarly worded. Only names are being changed and some words are changed. From the above, it appears that the firm of the Chartered Accountants simply used the same format and only name and dates etc. are changed and adjournment is sought without application of mind as to what is the subject and what is listed and what exactly is supposed to happen on that day.
3. In this case, the matters are listed for reporting compliance. We would have appreciated if the learned counsel was to indicate as to whether our directions have been complied with or not and if not why not. Since the directions given to the appellant vide Miscellaneous Order Nos. 28164-28166/2013 dated 11.12.2013 requiring the appellants to deposit 25% of the tax demanded was not complied with, the appeals themselves have to be rejected for non-compliance with the requirement of the provisions of Section 35F made applicable to service tax matters. Hence, appeals are rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss