Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
) M/S. Kanhaiya Exports (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs(Port), ... on 18 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Stay Petition Nos.SP-70538, 70539/13
&
Appeal Nos.CA-7542-70543/13
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.05/13 dated 25.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Port), Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, 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
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
1) M/s. Kanhaiya Exports (P) Ltd.
2) Shri Sudhir Satnaliwala
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs(Port), Kolkata
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
NONE for the Appellant (s) Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing:- 18.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 18.11.2015 ORDER NO.FO/A/75656-75657/2015 Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. Heard the ld.AR for the Revenue. None present for the applicant. The aforesaid applications/Appeals have been listed on 04.08.2014, 09.10.2014, 01.12.2014, 20.01.2015, 18.03.2015, 18.06.2015, 01.10.2015 and today i.e. 18.11.2015. On the last date of hearing i.e. 01.10.2015, this Tribunal directed the Revenue to serve the notice of hearing on the applicants at the address mentioned in their CA-3 Applications. The ld.AR for the Revenue today furnished a report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata dated 12.11.2015, where under it is informed that even though attempt was made to deliver the hearing notice personally to the Applicants at the address mentioned in the CA-3 application, the addressees were found to be not available in the said address.
2. We find that in spite of sufficient opportunities allowed to the applicant and notices were sent to the address mentioned in the CA-3 application, it seems that the applicants are not serious in pursuing their Stay Applications/Appeals. In the result, the Stay Applications as well as the Appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) SD/ SD/ (H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm 2 Appeal No.CA-70542-70543/13