Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ioc Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 26 March, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/1487/2000
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.95/2000 (M I) dated 20.9.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P. G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. IOC Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the Appellants Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent CORAM Honble Mr. P. G. Chacko, Member (J) Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Date of Hearing: 26.03.2008 Date of Decision: 26.03.2008 Final Order No. ____________ Per P. G. CHACKO The Memorandum of Appeal is not accompanied by any copy of the impugned order (Order-in-Appeal) nor by any copy of the Order-in-Original. Counsel for the appellants seeks adjournment of hearing. But the appeal cannot be heard without the requisite documents. There is no prayer for grant of time to produce such documents. In the circumstances the appeal gets dismissed under Rule 11(2) of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P. KARTHIKEYAN) (P.G. CHACKO) Member (T) Member (J) Rex ??
??
??
??
2