Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Thio Pharma vs C.C.E., Jaipur Ii on 11 June, 2014
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 11.6.2014 Central Excise Appeal No.55487 of 2013 Arising out of the order in appeal No.92(RDN) CE/JPR-II/2012 dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur II. For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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? Thio Pharma .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur II . Respondent
Appearance:
Present Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate for the appellant Present S/Shri Pramod Kumar/Govind Dixit, A.Rs for respondent/Revenue Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Final Order No. Per Justice G. Raghuram:
The stay application was disposed of on 24.9.2013 directing pre-deposit of Rs.20 lakhs within eight weeks and to report compliance on 28.11.2013. By order dated 28.11.2013, the time for pre-deposit was extended by six weeks with a clear observation that no further extension shall be granted and compliance shall be reported on 24.1.2014.
2. Petitioner/appellant pre-deposited Rs.14 lakhs (out of Rs.20 lakhs) on 23.1.2014 and sought further time for pre-deposit of the balance Rs.6 lakhs, by way of Misc. Application No.61380/2013. By the order dated 7.3.2014, Misc. Application was disposed of directing pre-deposit of the balance Rs.6 lakhs within the further period of two months and to report compliance on 15.5.2014. Balance of Rs.6 lakhs has not been deposited.
3. When the matter is taken up today for recording compliance, ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant places for our consideration a letter dated 10.6.2014 signed by one Shri Praveen Kumar, claiming to be authorised signatory of the appellant M/s Thio Pharma. This letter is addressed to the Honble Members comprising Division Bench which passed the order dated 7.3.2014. It is axiomatic that a litigant cannot and should not address letters to Judicial Officers. The only appropriate course for a litigant is to file an application/petition pleading appropriate reliefs, not addressing letters to adjudicators. Be that as it may.
4. The letter seeks waiver of the balance pre-deposit of Rs.6 lakhs or a further 12 weeks to make this pre-deposit, pleading certain reasons.
5. Time was extended, as earlier noticed on two occasions, on 28.11.2013 by six weeks for pre-deposit of Rs.20 lakhs and on 7.3.2014 by two months, for pre-deposit of the balance Rs.6 lakhs. No application/petition seeking further time for modification of the order of pre-deposit is filed.
6. In the circumstances, as there is failure of pre-deposit, in terms of the order dated 24.9.2013, as modified by the order dated 28.11.2013 and by further order dated 7.3.2014, we dismiss the appeal for failure of pre-deposit.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member scd/ 1