Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Saffron Sai Impex vs C.C.E., Delhi Iii on 29 October, 2009
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-III Date of hearing/decision: 29.10.2009 Customs Appeal No.75 of 2006 Arising out of the order in appeal No.378-379/GRM/GGN/2005 dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Gurgaon, Delhi III. For Approval and Signature: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri D.N.Panda, Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s Saffron Sai Impex Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Delhi III . Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellants Shri Sansar Chand, Authorized Departmental Representative (SDR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri D.N.Panda, Member (Judicial) Oral Order No._____________________ Per D.N. Panda:
Against the Appellate Order dated 27.10.2005, the appellant came in appeal on 30th January 2006 before Tribunal. Adjudication in this case was done more than 4(four) years back on 18.5.2005 resulting in confiscation of goods with option to redeem such goods on payment of fine of Rs.1,60,000/- . Penalty of Rs.70,000/- was imposed. All that was done due to misdeclaration of value. Such finding was concurred by learned Appellate Authority. Both authorities found no evidence to the defence of Assessee. No rebuttal with evidence also finds place in grounds of appeal.
2. Listing of the appeal has been made from time to time from 21st August, 2008. Despite notices have been issued beginning from May, 2009, the appellant is not causing presence to participate for hearing or lead defence. On the last occasion of hearing even on 6th August 2009, similar tendency came to record. Therefore, notice was issued for hearing of the matter on 22nd October, 2009. On that date also, no presence was caused by the appellant. When the matter is called today none is present for the appellants. It appears that that the appellant is following dilatory tactics for causing no appearance and has failed to cooperate the Tribunal for hearing. The tendency above shows that the appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal further. For non-prosecution of the appeal and considering the dilatory tactics to be abuse of process of law, the appeal calls for dismissal for which. We order accordingly.
(D.N.Panda) Member (Judicial) (M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) scd/ 2