Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Acalmar Oils & Fats Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 26 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No .20290 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: C/2698/2012-DB [Arising out of Order in Appeal 07-2012 dated 28/06/2012 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals), Visakhapatnam] ACALMAR OILS & FATS LTD (NOW ADANI WILMAR LTD) "FORTUNE HOUSE", NEAR NAVRANGAPURA RAILWAY STATION, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT 380009 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise,Service Tax and Customs - VISAKHAPATNAM-II CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 530035 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None ECONOMIC LAWS PRACTICE ADVS 1502, DALAMAL TOWER , NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI M.H 400021 For the Appellant Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 26/02/2014 Date of Decision: 26/02/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY When the matter was called for compliance report, there is no present on behalf of the appellant nor is there any compliance report complying with the directions in the Misc. Order No.27556/2013 dt. 22/10/2013.
2. This is a case where initially the appellant was directed to deposit entire amount of duty demanded and report compliance on 27/08/2013. When the assessee did not comply with the requirement, a show-cause notice was issued informing the appellant that if they fail to cause appearance, appeal will be dismissed. On 22/10/2013, the appellant was represented and on the representations made by the counsel and also obeying directions of the High Court, the application for restoration of appeal was allowed. Thereafter following a precedent decision of the Tribunal wherein the appellant had been directed to deposit 50% of the duty as predeposit and on the submission made by the learned counsel that the same condition would be applicable in the present case also, stay order was modified and appellant was given another opportunity to deposit 50% of the duty and appellant was directed to report compliance on 19/11/2013. Thereafter three months have elapsed but the appellant has failed to deposit the amount and today as mentioned earlier there is no representation for the appellant nor any compliance. Under these circumstances, we consider that the appellant does not deserve any more consideration and therefore the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
2