Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Semco Electric Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune I on 11 August, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI.

 APPEAL NOs. E/149 & 150/09-Mum 

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/VSU/262 & 263/08 dated 25.11.08 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune I.)

For approval and signature:
Mr. P.G.  Chacko, Honble  Member (Judicial)
Shri A.K. Srivastava, Honble  Member (Technical)
======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

====================================================== Semco Electric Pvt Ltd Appellant(s) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I Respondent(s) Appearance:

Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate For Appellant(s) Shri Manish Mohan, S.D.R. For Respondent(s) CORAM:
Mr. P.G. Chacko, Honble Member (Judicial) Shri A.K. Srivastava, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 11.8.2009 Date of Decision : 11.8.2009 ORDER NO.
Per : Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) :
1. We had directed the appellant to pre-deposit the duty amount within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 11.08.09 vide Order No S/192-193/WZB/09/EB/I dated 10.6.09. Today there is no evidence, on record, of pre-deposit, nor any application by the party for extension of time for making the deposit. The Counsel for the appellants submits that they are moving the Honble High Court for stay of operation of the above order. However, no order of stay has been produced.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed for non compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

(Pronounced and dictated in the Court) (A.K. Srivastava) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) rk