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 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Partner vs Cce, Chandigarh on 16 November, 2011

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
				West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
      
Date of hearing/decision:   16.11.2011
  
For approval and signature:	

Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Sh.Mathew John, Memmber (Technical)

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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?




Excise Appeal Nos. 3360 & 3370 of  2010 in   
(Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 84/CE/CHD-I/10 dated 27.07.10 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh).

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Partner				Appellants
M/s Aggarwal Steel and Rolling Mills and 
Metal Industries

Vs.

CCE, Chandigarh 	 					Respondent

Appearance:

None for the appellants.
Rep. by Sh. S.R. Meena, DR for the respondent. Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Sh. Mathew John, Member (Technical) ORDER NO.
Per: Archana Wadhwa:
M/s Aggarwal Steel and Rolling Mills and Metal Industries was directed to deposit 50% of the penalty within a period of six weeks of the receipt of the order. Subsequently, matter came up for compliance on 25.7.2011 and it was observed that there was no compliance to the stay order and the consequences as contemplated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are bound to follow. However, before dismissing the appeals, opportunity was given to the appellants to satisfy the Tribunal as to why the appeals should not be dismissed.

2. On matter being called today, neither the appellants is present nor is there any compliance report. In the circumstances, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance with the provision of Section 35F of the Act read with stay order referred (supra).

(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Mathew John) Member (Technical) Pant 1