Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Pioneer Colours & Coating Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Gurgaon on 26 October, 2009
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI COURT No. III E/STAY NO. 968 & 971 OF 2009 IN AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1006, 1009 of 2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02-03/ANS/GGN/2009 dated 9.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon] Dated of hearing/decision: 26th October, 2009 For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 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 would 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? M/s. Pioneer Colours & Coating Pvt. Ltd., Shri Yogender Singh, M.D. Appellants Vs. CCE, Gurgaon Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellants; Shri S.K. Bhaskar, JDR for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.
2. None appeared on behalf of the applicants despite issue of notice. There is no application for adjournment in the file. It seems that the applicants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. Accordingly, appeal as well as stay application are dismissed for non-prosecution. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI COURT No. III E/STAY NO. 968 & 971 OF 2009 IN AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1006, 1009 of 2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02-03/ANS/GGN/2009 dated 9.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon] Dated of hearing/decision: 26th October, 2009 For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)
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 would 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? M/s. Pioneer Colours & Coating Pvt. Ltd., Shri Yogender Singh, M.D. Appellants Vs. CCE, Gurgaon Respondent Appearance:
None for the appellants; Shri S.K. Bhaskar, JDR for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.
2. None appeared on behalf of the applicants despite issue of notice. There is no application for adjournment in the file. It seems that the applicants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. Accordingly, appeal as well as stay application are dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI COURT No. III E/STAY NO. 968 & 971 OF 2009 IN AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1006, 1009 of 2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02-03/ANS/GGN/2009 dated 9.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon] Dated of hearing/decision: 26th October, 2009 For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)
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 would 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? M/s. Pioneer Colours & Coating Pvt. Ltd., Shri Yogender Singh, M.D. Appellants Vs. CCE, Gurgaon Respondent Appearance:
None for the appellants; Shri S.K. Bhaskar, JDR for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.
2. None appeared on behalf of the applicants despite issue of notice. There is no application for adjournment in the file. It seems that the applicants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. Accordingly, appeal as well as stay application are dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI COURT No. III E/STAY NO. 968 & 971 OF 2009 IN AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1006, 1009 of 2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02-03/ANS/GGN/2009 dated 9.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon] Dated of hearing/decision: 26th October, 2009 For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)
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 would 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? M/s. Pioneer Colours & Coating Pvt. Ltd., Shri Yogender Singh, M.D. Appellants Vs. CCE, Gurgaon Respondent Appearance:
None for the appellants; Shri S.K. Bhaskar, JDR for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.
2. None appeared on behalf of the applicants despite issue of notice. There is no application for adjournment in the file. It seems that the applicants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. Accordingly, appeal as well as stay application are dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK