Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd on 23 February, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Stay Petition No.SP-75259/14
In Appeal No.S.T. 75182/14
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.17-18/CE/BBSR-I/2013 dated 06.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, 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 should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-I
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
M/s.Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd.
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri K.Chowdhury, Supdt.(A.R.) for the Revenue NONE for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision :- 23.02.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 23.02.2015 ORDER NO.FO/A/75125/2015 Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. This stay application is filed by the Revenue seeking stay of the Order-in-Appeal No. 17-18/CE/BBSR-I/2013 dated 06.06.2013.
2. At the outset the ld.A.R. for the Revenue submitted that two appeals had been filed by the Revenue along with stay application challenging the said Order-in-Appeal. The reason for filing two appeals against the said Order-in-Appeal was that while disposing the Appeal, the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has decided two orders-in-original involving different issues. He further submits that considering the order-in-original dated 08.08.2001 the stay application of the Revenue was dismissed by this Tribunal vide Order No.SO-75079/2014 dated 20.01.2014. Also, in relation to order-in-original dated 28.03.2011 this Tribunal dismissed the Revenues stay application subsequently vide order No.SO/75273/2014 dated 07.03.2014. In the second stay application/Appeal the name of the appellant was mentioned as Sri J.Dalayya, whereas the correct name should have been M/s.Ferro Alloys Corporation. Consequently the appellant was directed to rectify the said mistake in the appeal. However, the department has filed another set of Appeals correcting the title of appellant as M/s.Ferro Alloys Corporation instead of Sri J.Dalayya, (AGM, Material, M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd.), and the Registry by mistake allotted appeal number bearing No.E-71102/13, stay application No.SP-71159/13 to the same. This stay application is listed today for hearing.
4. The ld.A.R. submits that since the stay applications are already disposed of relating to the same order-in-appeal thus the present stay application and appeal which erroneously filed becomes infructuous and therefore not maintainable.
5. I find force in the submission of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue. This stay application and appeal have been inadvertently filed, while correcting the name of the Appellant in the earlier Appeal, hence infructuous and accordingly dismissed. Appeal and Stay Petition dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) SD/ (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm 3 Appeal No.S.T. 75182/14