Dismissed

Satish Nandlal Rathi v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax-Aurangabad

CESTAT17 Oct 2024E/89251/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed by Gopal Satyanarayan Mundada and Satish Nandlal Rathi before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench were dismissed for default due to the appellants' non-appearance at the hearing scheduled for 17.10.2024.

What did the court decide?

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

Satish Nandlal Rathi vs Commissioner of Central… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | CESTAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

Excise Appeal No. 89250 of 2014

¶3

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AV (116-120)99, 100, 101, 102, 103/2014 dated 13.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad)

¶4

Gopal Satyanarayan Mundada Appellant

¶5

Prop. M/s. Bhagyashree Traders, Opp. Krishna Rolling Mill, Near Varad Transport, Addl. MIDC Area, Jalna 431 203.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Commissioner of CE & ST, Aurangabad Respondent

¶8

Town Centre, N-5, CICO, Aurangabad 431 003.

¶9

AND

¶10

Excise Appeal No. 89251 of 2014

¶11

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AV (116-120)99, 100, 101, 102, 103/2014 dated 13.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad)

¶12

Satish Nandlal Rathi

¶13

Appellant

¶14

Pop. M/s. Santosh Steel Traders, Nand Nandan, 21, DLR Road, Near Amit Hotel, Jalna 431 003.

¶15

Vs.

¶16

Commissioner of CE & ST, Aurangabad Respondent

¶17

Town Centre, N-5, CICO, Aurangabad 431 003.

¶18

Appearance:

¶19

None for the Appellant Shri C.S. Vinod, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

¶20

CORAM:

¶21

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

¶22

Date of Hearing: 17.10.2024

¶23

Date of Decision: 17.10.2024

¶24

FINAL ORDER No. 86236-86237/2024

¶25

PER: BENCH

¶26

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

¶27

E/89250,89251/2014

¶28

¶29

Notice sent through the concerned Commissioner has been served on the appellants as indicated by the Aurangabad Commissionerate through their email dated 16.10.2024 addressed to the Authorised Representative of the department, to attend the hearing today but none appeared.

¶30

We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants are no more interested to pursue their appeals further. Consequently, we dismiss the appeals for default under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

¶31

(Order pronounced in the open court)

¶32

(Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati) Member (Judicial)

¶33

(Anil G. Shakkarwar) Member (Technical)

¶34

tvu

Satish Nandlal Rathi v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax-Aurangabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Nandlal Rathi v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax-Aurangabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanofi India Limited vs Vadodara-ii

Ags Transact Technologies Limited vs Cgst & Central Excise Daman

Sanofi India Limited vs Vadodara-ii

Nayara Energy Ltd. vs Rajkot

Ramdayal vs Commissioner of Central Excise-Nagpur

Dewang Neralla vs Commissioner of Central Excise -Mumbai-I

Namo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi-Iv

Cnf automotive india Pvt. Ltd. vs Chennai-Iv