Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Shivshakti Industries ] (Shri ... vs Cce, Rohtak on 18 November, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. II Excise Appeal No. 1279 of 2008 and Customs Appeal Nos. 531-532 of 2008 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 17/Commr./SU/ 2008/CUS dated 15/04/2008 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Rohtak.] 1. M/s Shivshakti Industries ] (Shri Mukesh Raj, Co. Rep.) 2. M/s R.K. Ispat Ltd. ] (Shri M.P. Devenathan, Advocate) 3. Shri Ram Avtar Aggarwal ] Appellant Versus CCE, Rohtak Respondent
[Shri S. Shah, Auth. Rep. (DR)] CORAM : Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member DATE OF HEARING : 18/11/2008.
Order No. ________________ Dated : ,,,,,,,,,,,_____________ Per. D.N. Panda :-
As per direction of the Tribunal in terms of order dated 10/09/08, M/s Shivshakti Industries was directed to make deposit of an amount of the Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). Shri Mukesh Raj appearing for the appellant submitted a copy of the challan to learned DR who verified and agreed that the deposit of the ordered amount was made. Therefore, we note the compliance thereof.
2. So far as the direction made to M/s R.K. Ispat Ltd. by the above common order is concerned, learned counsel Shri Devenathan appearing for the appellant today submits that there is no instruction to him as to the deposit of the ordered amount. Therefore, he prays that for failure to make compliance of above order of the Tribunal appropriate order may be passed. Hearing Revenue and considering such submission, pre-deposit being pre-requisite of law, to avail appeal remedy which is not followed by the appellant, the appellants have made their appeal fatal. Therefore, the appeal case No. C/531 of 2008 stands dismissed.
3. Shri Devenathan also submits that the appellants Shri Ram Avtar Aggarwal in Customs appeal case No. 532 of 2008 has not made the pre-deposit, as directed by the common order dated 10/09/08. Heard Revenue. Pre-deposit being pre-requisite to hear an appeal, failure of the appellant has made the appellant unsuccessful to proceed further. Therefore this appeal also calls for dismissal and we order accordingly.
4. It has been observed in the course of hearing that a common order was passed in aforesaid three appeals under two different statues. Appeal of M/s Shivshakti Industries was under Central Excise Act, 1944 and M/s R.K. Ispat Ltd. and Shri Ram Avtar Aggarwal are under Customs Act, 1962. The registry should have proper attention to place all the three matters before one bench instead of segregation of the matter. If segregation is done, the matter may lose sight in dispensing justice.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member PK