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 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Ambience Constructions India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 7 April, 2014

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE

Final Order No .   20481 / 2014    

Application(s) Involved:

ST/Stay/1026/2010    in    ST/1745/2010-DB

Appeal(s) Involved:

ST/1745/2010-DB 
 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2010 dated 30/03/2010 passed by Commissioner of  Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad] 

AMBIENCE CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA LTD 
GIRISIKHARA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.101, 6-3-600/2/B, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, KHAIRTABAD, HYDERABAD 
Appellant(s)

Versus


Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - HYDERABAD-II 
L.B STADIUM ROAD,
BASHEERBAGH, 
HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH-500004
Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 07/04/2014 Date of Decision: 07/04/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the assessed tax liability plus proportionate interest and report compliance on 30/09/2013 vide Miscellaneous Order No. 26555/2013 dated 10.07.2013. When the matter was called for noting compliance today, there is no one present on behalf of the appellant nor is there any request. We also see from the records that there is a memo from the appellant filed (undated) wherein the appellant had submitted that they have filed an appeal before the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Honble High Court had heard their appeal on 24.09.2013 and had issued a notice to advocate representing the department for appearance. In view of the above, they had sought eight weeks time to report compliance. It is seen that the eight weeks time sought in this memo was also over long back. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant has to be dismissed for non-compliance with the requirement of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 made applicable to service tax matters and we do so. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Pnr...
2