Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Sunil Dutt Agarwal vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import) on 1 February, 2016

        

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

COURT No. I

Appeal No.  C/88482, 88491/14

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 13/2013-14 dated 15.04.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Export)  JNCH, Nhava Sheva)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, 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?

Sunil Dutt Agarwal Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai Respondent Appearance:

Shri Surinarayanan, Advocate for appellant Shri C. Singh, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 01.02.2016 Date of Decision: 01.02.2016 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran When this matter was called out, we find that there is no compliance of pre-deposit ordered by this Bench.
2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records we find that this Bench vide stay order No.S/326-332/15/CB dated 25.05.2015 had directed the appellants herein to pre-deposit an amount of 10% of the penalty imposed on them and report compliance on 31.08.2015. Incidentally the other appellants who were directed to deposit the amount had complied with the same. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that due to financial hardship he requires some more time to deposit the amount.
3. We are not impressed with the argument put forth by the learned Counsel as the compliance was to be made on 31.08.2015 and more than five months have been passed and no compliance was reported. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for non-compliance.

(Dictated in Court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk ??

??

??

??

1 2

Appeal No. C/88482, 88491/14