M/S. Phoenix Electric (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
| Mar-21-2001 |
| (2001)(132)ELT109TriDel |
| M/S. Phoenix Electric (India) |
| Commissioner of Central Excise, |
1.this appeal involves the modvat credit amounting the rs.7,379.28. the appeal was dismissed, vide final order no.a/1919/2000/nb (sm) dated 10.10.2000 at the admission stage itself.2. the appellants filed the restoration of appeal petition. the appellants are not represented. shri kamal jeet singh, advocate for the appellants has, however, sent a letter dated 20.3.2001, in which it is stated that he is attending on his elder brother, who is admitted in pgi, chandigarh. it is, therefore, requested that the matter may be adjourned to any other date. it is observed that the matter has already been adjourned twice over earlier at the request of the appellants. i am, therefore, not inclined to adjourn it any further.3. as already stated above, the present appeal was dismissed by the bench at the admission stage itself. the appellants have shown scant interest in pursuing the roa petition filed by them as is evident from their constant absence from attending the hearings. the restoration of appeal petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable and further for non-prosecution.
1.This appeal involves the MODVAT credit amounting the Rs.7,379.28. The appeal was dismissed, vide Final Order No.A/1919/2000/NB (SM) dated 10.10.2000 at the admission stage itself.
2. The appellants filed the Restoration of Appeal Petition. The appellants are not represented. Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants has, however, sent a letter dated 20.3.2001, in which it is stated that he is attending on his elder brother, who is admitted in PGI, Chandigarh. It is, therefore, requested that the matter may be adjourned to any other date. It is observed that the matter has already been adjourned twice over earlier at the request of the appellants. I am, therefore, not inclined to adjourn it any further.
3. As already stated above, the present appeal was dismissed by the Bench at the admission stage itself. The appellants have shown scant interest in pursuing the ROA Petition filed by them as is evident from their constant absence from attending the hearings. The Restoration of Appeal Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable and further for non-prosecution.