Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hyva (India) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 10 October, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI Appeal No. E/996/10 arising out of order-in-original No. Belapur/13/Bel-II/R-V/Commr/SLM/20092009-10 dated 18.2.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Belapur. Date of hearing 10.10.2011 Date pronounced 10.10.2011 Hyva (India) Pvt Ltd Applicant Represented by: Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Advocate Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Respondent Represented by: Mr. P.N. Das, Commissioner (A.R.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
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 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
CORAM Mr. S.S. Kang, Hon'ble Vice President Mr. Sahab Singh, Honble Member (Technical) ORDER No: ..
Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides. The Tribunal vide stay order dated 1.8.2011 directed the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs 50 lakhs for hearing the appeal. Today the case was listed for reporting compliance. The applicants had not complied with the condition of stay order. The only contention of the applicants is that the applicants had approached the Honble High Court against the order passed by this Tribunal directing the applicants to deposit Rs 50 lakhs. The applicants has not produced any order passed by the Honble High Court staying or modifying the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence the applicants has not complied with the stay order and hence we dismiss the appeal for non compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, both sides have liberty to mention after the decision of the Honble High Court. (Dictated in Court) (Sahab Singh Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk