Dismissed

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

CESTAT17 Oct 2024E/89338/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cestat dismissed two excise appeals for default and non-prosecution. The first appeal was filed by an unauthorized former partner against a non-existing company. The second appellant failed to appear. The court applied Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for default and non-prosecution.

Satish Rathi vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax-Aurangabad — CESTAT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH, COURT NO. 5

¶2

EXCISE APPEAL NO. 89260 OF 2014

¶3

(Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 36/CEX/COMMR./2014 dated 06.06.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs and CE, Aurangabad.)

¶4

MAA SARASWATI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS PVT LTD

¶5

D-63, Additional MIDC, Jalna-431 203.

¶6

Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, AURANGABAD

¶9

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

¶10

Respondent

¶11

WITH

¶12

EXCISE APPEAL NO. 89338 OF 2014

¶13

(Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 36/CEX/COMMR./2014 dated 06.06.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs and CE, Aurangabad.)

¶14

SATISH RATHI

¶15

M/s. Santosh Steel traders, Nand Nandan, 21, DLR Road, Near Amit Hotel, Jalna-431 203.

¶16

Appellant

¶17

Vs.

¶18

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND

¶19

SERVICE TAX, AURANGABAD

¶20

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

¶21

Respondent

¶22

Appearance:

¶23

None for the Appellant.

¶24

Shri C.S. Vinod, Assistant Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

¶25

CORAM:

¶26

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

¶27

Date of Hearing: 17.10.2024 Date of Decision: 17.10.2024

¶28

FINAL ORDER NO :- 86665-86666/2024.

¶29

None for these two appeals.

¶30

Notice sent to Appellant M/s. Maa Saraswati Steel Re-rolling Mills Pvt

¶31

Ltd could not be served by the concerned Commissioner as company is no

¶32

E/89260/2014 WITH E/89338/2014

¶33

more existing in its address and notice on the other appellant M/s. Satish Rathi has been served but he failed to appear today. Going by the appeal paper book, it is found that for appellant M/s. Maa Saraswati Steel Re-rolling Mills Pvt Ltd, its ex-partner had filed this appeal and verified the same who has no authority to do so and as none of them are present, we are of the considered view that they are no more interested to pursue their appeal for which they are not taking any effective step.

¶34

We, therefore, dismiss these appeals for default and non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

¶35

(Dictated and pronounced in open court.)

¶36

(Dr. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI) MEMBER ( JUDICIAL )

¶37

(ANIL.G.SHAKKARWAR) MEMBER ( TECHNICAL )

¶38

suraj

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish 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

Statutes considered

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