The Tribunal dismissed the Excise Appeal filed in 2005 on the ground of non-prosecution. The Tribunal observed that despite multiple adjournments sought by the appellant and repeated non-appearances, the appellant showed no interest in pursuing the matter.
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.2
Excise Appeal No. 344 of 2005
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 71-76/MP/Commr/2005 dated 23.03.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi.)
M/s Akshaya Technologies Pvt. Ltd,
(Ramgarh, Industrial Ares, P.O.- marar Hazaribagh.)
..Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi,
(C. R. Building, 5, Main Road, Ranchi-834001.)
.. ... Respondent
APPERANCE :
None, for the Appellant Shri S. Dutta, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Final Order No.75664/2026
DATE OF HEARING : 15.05.2026 DATE OF DECISION : 15.05.2026
PER R. Muralidhar:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant in the year 2005. This Bench vide order dated 24.05.2006, granted full waiver of pre-deposit and passed the order.
2
Excise Appeal No. 344 of 2005
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Sd/- (R. Muralidhar) Member (Judicial)
Sd/(Rajeev Tandon) Member (Technical) Tushar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to prolonged non-prosecution and multiple adjournments by the appellant.
M/s Akshaya Technologies Pvt. Ltd
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi
R. Muralidhar
Rajeev Tandon
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a central excise matter before CESTAT.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
