Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik on 17 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Appeal No. E/89096 to 89098/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RPS/212 to 214/NSK/2013 dated 9.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
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 : Yes 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?
====================================================== M/s Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Jai T. Gupta Mr. Vishal P Gupta Appellants Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Respondent Appearance:
Shri Dilip Dadwal, Purchase Officer for Appellants Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commr. (AR) for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 17.07.2014 Date of Decision: 17.07.2014 ORDER NO.
Per: Shri Anil Choudhary Vide stay order No. S/337-339/14/SMB/C-IV dated 18.3.2014, the appellants were directed to make pre-deposit of 25% of the penalties imposed on them within eight a period of eight weeks and compliance was to be reported on 29.5.2014. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellant nor there is any compliance report. As the appellants have failed to report compliance in spite of three notices, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Later on, Shri Dilip Dadwal, Purchase Officer, at the time of rising of the Court, appears and states that he could not appear in the Court on time due to heavy rain. The appellant prays for further time of two months for depositing the amount as directed by the Tribunal. He further states that the factory is lying closed for more than 12 months and accordingly, the appellants are facing financial crunch and they are trying to arrange the funds, hence, the time be granted.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I grant liberty to the appellants to file restoration applications for restoring their appeals after depositing the amount of pre-deposit ordered by this Court vide stay order dated 18.3.2014.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) Sinha 1