Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Aureola Chemicals Ltd vs Cce, Indore on 4 May, 2009
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Excise Appeal No. 2710 of 2008
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/158/2008 dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Indore).
DATE OF HEARING : 04.05.2009
DATE OF DECISION : 04.05.2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. M. VEERAIYAN, 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 ?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s Aureola Chemicals Ltd. . Appellant
(Rep by NONE)
VERSUS
CCE, Indore . Respondent
(Rep. by Sh. A.K. Rastogi, DR)
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. M. VEERAIYAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
ORAL ORDER NO.____________________________
PER JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR :
By order dated 03rd March, 2009 in stay application no. E/2722/08, the appellants request for waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty was rejected and they were directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- within eight weeks. Under the said order, compliance report was required to be filed today. When the matter was called out in the morning session of the Tribunal, none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, the matter was kept back and was again call out at 4.10 PM. However, none appeared in the matter nor any compliance report is placed on record in relation to the order dated 03rd March, 2009 in stay application no. E/2722/08. Learned DR also states that he had no intimation about the deposit of the amount in terms of the said order. In the circumstances, the consequences contemplated under statutory provisions will have to follow. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the application under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR) PRESIDENT (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Golay