Bombay High Court
M/S Shridhar Casting Pvt. Ltd., Tah. ... vs Union Of India Thr. Its Secretary, ... on 5 January, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, V.M. Deshpande
1 jud050116cea 3.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Central Excise Appeal No.3 of 2013
1] M/s Shridhar Casting Pvt. Ltd,
26 Kms. Nagpur-Saoner Road,
Tah. Saoner, District Nagpur.
2] Praful Shridhar Vaidya,
Aged about 47 years, Occ.- Business,
Managing Director, M/s Shridhar Casting
Pvt. Ltd., 26 kms., Nagpur-Saoner Road,
Tah. Saoner, District Nagpur. .... Appellants.
Versus
1] Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
2] The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise,
Telenkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. .... Respondents.
Shri. Masood Shareef, Advocate for appellants.
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari &
V.M. Deshpande, JJ.
th
Dated : 05 January, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:50:26 :::
2 jud050116cea 3.13.odt The present Appeal is against the order dated 07-09-2012 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai [C.E.S.T.A.T.] refusing to restore the appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The pre-
deposit of 25% of the demand ordered by the C.E.S.T.A.T. was not made. That order was challenged before this Court in the Writ Petition and in absence of any interim order passed by this Court, the Appeal came to be dismissed. In the light of dismissal of appeal by C.E.S.T.A.T. earlier Writ Petition filed before this Court was withdrawn and the another Writ Petition came to be filed. After withdrawing later Writ Petition due to availability of statutory appeal, the present appeal has been filed.
2] The questions sought to be raised as the substantial questions of law in this appeal are as under :-
"i] Whether the lower Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to restore the appeal, on the ground of non compliance of the conditions of stay order?
ii] In the absence of any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, whether the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:50:26 ::: 3 jud050116cea 3.13.odt lower Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant restoration of appeal on the ground of non compliance of the conditions of stay order ?"
3] Thus, the error, if any, in order of pre-deposit or the consequences thereof are not being urged as the substantial questions of law. No arguments in that regard are advanced. C.E.S.T.A.T. was legally bound by its earlier direction and has only passed consequential order under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Its order dated 07-09-2012 refusing to restore the Appeal so dismissed does not show any jurisdictional error. We, therefore, find that the questions as formulated do not arise from the impugned order as substantial questions of law.
4] The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:50:26 :::