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 0, Cited by 8]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Sark International vs Cc (Port Import), Chennai on 3 September, 2013

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

C/COD/90 & 91/2008 and C/S/82 & 83/2008
and 
C/109 & 110/2008 

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 310 & 311/2007 dated 26.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem)

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member


1. Whether Press Reporters 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 the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether  order  is  to  be  circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Sark International
M/s. Anil Impex							Appellants

      
      Vs.


CC (Port  Import), Chennai				        Respondent

Appearance None for the Appellants Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, Jt. Commr. (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 03.09.2013 Date of Decision: 03.09.2013 Final Order No. 40348 & 40349/2013 Per P.K. Das None appears on behalf of the appellants despite issue of notice. There is no application for adjournment either. The learned AR for Revenue submits that the case relates to 2008 and therefore the appeals should be dismissed.

2. After hearing the learned AR and on perusal of the records, we find that on earlier occasion, the learned counsel by letter dated 19.6.2013 withdrew the appearance. The Tribunal directed the Registry to issue notice for hearing on 3.9.2013. We find that despite issue of notice, none appears on behalf of the appellants. It seems that the appellants are not interested to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, the COD applications along with stay applications and the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.

 (Dictated and pronounced in open court)






   (Mathew John)		              		   (P.K. Das) 
Technical Member			     		Judicial Member 		

Rex