Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Jvl Agro Industries Ltd vs Commr. Of Customs,Central Excise & S. ... on 19 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD
SP-51348/2015
& Ex. Appeal No.52079/2015
Arising out of O/O No.MP(Dem-78/2013) 01 of 2015 dated 12.01.2015 passed by Commr. of Customs & Central Excise & S.Tax, Allahabad.
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HONBLE MR. 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? : No
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? : Seen
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? : Yes
M/s JVL Agro Industries Ltd.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commr. of Customs,Central Excise & S. Tax, Allahabad
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE None for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajkumar Maji, Asstt.Commr. (D.R.) for the Department CORAM:
HONBLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. H. K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING & PRONOUNCEMENT : 19. 01. 2016 ORDER NO..
Per Mr. Anil Choudhary :
The appellants have filed the present appeal on 16.04.2015 against OIO dated 12.01.2015, by which duty of Rs.1,73,64,280/-, have been demanded. The appellants have not made mandatory predeposit required under Section 35F of the Act. On Defect Memo issued by the Registry as regards the mandatory predeposit required under Section 35F of the Act, the appellants have filed Stay Application on 27.05.2015 praying for waiver of predeposit of the tax, duty and penalty.
2. The appellant is absent on call in spite of notice.
3. Heard the ld.DR for the Revenue, who relies on the ruling of the Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India : 2015 (320) ELT 711 (All.), wherein it has been held that this requirement of compulsory predeposit under Section 35F, is not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Tribunal being a creature of Statute, cannot waive the amount of predeosit being mandatory under the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. Accordingly, in absence of predeposit having been made, the stay application and the appeal are rejected.
4. Later, an employee of the assessee, appears with a time petition on the ground that as their Consultant is not well, the hearing be adjourned. Under the circumstances and the matter being covered by the ruling of the Honble Allahabad High Court, time petition is rejected. However, the appellant is granted at liberty to apply for restoration after making mandatory predeposit.
5. Thus, the stay petition and the appeal, stand dismissed.
(Pronounced in the open Court)
Sd/ Sd/
(H.K.THAKUR) (ANIL CHOUDHARY)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
mm
2
Ex. Appeal No.52079/15