Dismissed

Precision Drawell Pvtltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise-Thane-I

CESTAT15 Oct 2024E/85935/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the excise appeal for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules due to non-prosecution. However, it noted that without a refusal of the appellant's claim of duty payment under Section 11AC(1)(b), no recovery could be made, observing stricter adherence to the rule for future similar instances.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Precision Drawell Pvtltd vs Commissioner of Central… — GST and Indirect Tax | CESTAT (2024)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH Court No.5

¶2

Excise Appeal No. 85935 of 2015

¶3

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APP/258/14-15 dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur)

¶4

Precision Drawell Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

Appellant

¶6

Khasra No.221 & 222, Village: Tekadi, Taluka: Parseoni, Dist: Nagpur

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I Respondent 4^th Floor, Navprabhat Chambers, Ranade Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028.

¶9

Appearance: None for the Appellant Shri Xavier Mascarenhas, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶12

Date of Hearing: 15.10.2024 Date of Decision: 15.10.2024

¶13

FINAL ORDER No. 86663/2024.

¶14

PER: BENCH

¶15

None for the appellant as has been the case on last several occasions. Learned AR is present.

¶16

Appellant has sent a letter dated 16.04.2024 to this office requesting for a decision in the case on merit in its absence as the appellant has already paid the confirmed duty amount along with interest and penalty @ 25% within 30 days from the passing of order by the adjudicating authority but no proof payment is furnished by the appellant to cover its case under Section 11AC(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 apart from the fact that Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 has not given any express authority to the Tribunal to take the submissions of the appellant so as to decide the case on merit, except hearing of its appeal in its absence which is permitted under the rule, in which event the respondent department can only be heard in the present circumstances. We, therefore, are of the view that this appeal

¶17

E/85935/2015 2

¶18

should be dismissed for default and non-prosecution but as the appellant claims to have complied with the provision of law enumerated under Section 11AC(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, no recovery can be made from the appellant without verification of the claim made by it.

¶19

With these observations, we dismiss the appeal for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

¶20

(Order pronounced in the open court)

¶21

(Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati) Member (Judicial)

¶22

(Anil G. Shakkarwar) Member (Technical)

¶23

tvu

Precision Drawell Pvtltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise-Thane-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Precision Drawell Pvtltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise-Thane-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bodal Chemicals Ltd. vs Vadodara-i

Ge India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. vs Bangalore-v

Jay Nikki Industries Limited vs Additional Director General Adjudication Directorate General of GST Intelligence-New Delhi

Nagata Auto Engineering India Private Limited vs Additional Director General Adjudication Directorate General of GST Intelligence-New Delhi

Pallavi Graphics vs Commissioner of Central Excise-Thane-I

Mahanagar Gas Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise -Mumbai-Ii

Mahanagar Gas Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise -Mumbai-Ii

Sanofi India Limited vs Vadodara-ii