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 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills on 30 November, 2012

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III


Excise   Appeal  No. 3727 of   2010-SM

[Arising out of Modification of stay order No.34/CE/Stay/CHD/2010 arising out of Order-in-original  No. 22-CE/ADC(P&V)CHD/2009   dated 3.3.2010  passed by  the Additional Commissioner (P&V),  Central Excise Commissionerate I, Chandigarh  ]
	
For approval and signature:
     
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, 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	:	NO
      of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
      publication in any authoritative report or not?


3.  Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair 	:	Seen
      copy of the Order?


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

Commissioner of  Central Excise                                 Appellants 
Chandigarh

Vs.


M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills                    Respondent

Appearance:
Shri B.B. Sharma, AR   for the Appellants	
None   for the Respondent 


Date of Hearing/decision :  30.11.2012


ORAL  ORDER NO . ________________________

Per Archana Wadhwa:

Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has modified his earlier directions passed under Stay Order directing the respondent to deposit payable duty of 50% and penalty imposed upon them. However, the respondents moved the modification application before Commissioner (Appeals) and after taking into consideration the submissions made by the respondents,. As regards the merits of the case, he modified his earlier stray order and directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. These directions were passed on the modification application filed by the assessee.

2. It is seen that modification was done by Commissioner (Appeals) on 10.9.2010 and the respondent was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4 lakh within 15 days of receipt of stay order and evidence was required to be produced on record within a period of 20 days subject to which their appeal will be taken up for final disposal.

3. At the time of disposal of stay petition, learned DR was directed to find out as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed the appeal or not. On matter being called, learned DR fairly agrees that appeal stand disposed of by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 29.4.2011. As such, nothing survives in the present appeal of the Revenue inasmuch as the same is against modification order passed by him. As such, appeal stand rejected as infructous.

(Pronounced in the open Court)


	                                                                    (  Archana  Wadhwa   )        							           Member(Judicial)
ss





2