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 1, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Shri Ramdas Shivram Sangle vs Cce, Aurangabad on 1 September, 2014

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI 					       COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/92920 & 92919/13
IN APPEAL NO. E/85468 & 85469/13

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AV (205-206) 138, 139/2012 dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad.) 		
For approval and signature:							    Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, 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 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?

Shri Ramdas Shivram Sangle M/s Ramdas Ispat & Metals Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant Versus CCE, Aurangabad : Respondent Appearance None : For Appellants Shri S.G. Dewalwar, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) : For Respondents CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing : 01.09.2014 Date of Decision: 01.09.2014 ORDER NO....................................................... Per: Anil Choudhary:
Vide stay order No. S/489-491/14/SMB/C-IV dated 05.05.2014, the appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty within a period of eight weeks and compliance was to be reported on 17.07.2014. When the matter came earlier on 17.07.2014, the appellant had not responded to compliance, in the interest of justice, last chance was given to report compliance on 01.09.2014. When the matter called today for ascertaining compliance, even though the appellant was given two chances to report compliance, no body is present on behalf of the appellant nor there is any compliance report on record. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with direction of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) Sp 2