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 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Pooja Marketing Agencies vs Cce&St, Hyderabad on 18 December, 2012

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench  Division Bench
Court  I

Date of Hearing:18/12/2012 
                                    		    Date of decision:18/12/2012

Appeal No.ST/609/2009

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.26/2009-ST dt. 31/03/2009 passed by CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad)


For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. Mathew John, 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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


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


M/s. Pooja Marketing Agencies
..Appellant(s)

Vs.
CCE&ST, Hyderabad
..Respondent(s)

Appearance None for the appellant.

Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent.

Coram:

Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. Mathew John, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: P.G. Chacko] We had directed the appellant to predeposit Rs.20 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance to the Assistant Registrar on 10/09/2012. The Assistant Registrar was required to report to the Bench on 17/09/2012 vide Stay Order No.1404/2012 dt. 03/07/2012. Eventually the matter is arising today for report of compliance.

2. There is no evidence on record of the above amount having been predeposited nor is there any request for further time for predeposit, nor is there even any representation for the appellant today despite notice.

3. The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. (Pronounced and dictated in open court) (MATHEW JOHN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 2