Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Silver Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 22 November, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/887/08 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 10/CEX/2008 (F.No.V(72)15-9/Silver/NSK/07) dated 28.3.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, 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 :
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?
====================================================== Silver Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Nasik Respondent Appearance:
Shri J. Motwani, Advocate, for appellant Shri K. Lal, Authorised Representative (SDR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 22.11.2010 Date of Decision: 22.11.2010 ORDER NO Per: P.G. Chacko We had directed the appellant to pre-deposit 40% of the duty demanded vide stay order No. S/68-100/2010/EB/C-II dated 19.4.2010. Subsequently, the appellant prayed for modification of the stay order on the ground of financial hardships. This Bench, having found no merits, rejected that application but granted extension of time for making the pre-deposit vide order No. M/1085/2010/EB/C-II dated 1.11.2010. Accordingly, the appellant should have reported compliance today. There is no evidence of compliance on record. The counsel for the appellant submits that he has no instructions in the matter.
2. The appeal is dismissed for want of compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
(Pronounced in Court) (S.K. Gaule) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 2