M/S Ispat Structurals P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. as per order dated 10.10.2000, this tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit the penalty amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. the matter subsequently came up before the bench on 26.12.2000. on that day, ld. advocate for the party appears to have explained the circumstances in which the amount could not be deposited within the stipulated period, and requested for extension of time for compliance with the direction for deposit of the amount. the bench granted extension of time. accordingly, the matter has come up today before the bench. today, ld. counsel submits that he ils yet to receive any response from his clients to his advice for deposit.2. ld. sdr prays for rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35f of the central excise act.3. in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, i am constrained to accept the plea of ld. sdr. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable on account of non-compliance with the provisions of section 35f of the act. the appellants will, however, be at liberty to move the tribunal for restoration of the appeal in accordance with law after compliance, with the above provision of law.

Judgment:
1. As per Order dated 10.10.2000, this Tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit the penalty amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The matter subsequently came up before the Bench on 26.12.2000. On that day, Ld. Advocate for the party appears to have explained the circumstances in which the amount could not be deposited within the stipulated period, and requested for extension of time for compliance with the direction for deposit of the amount. The Bench granted extension of time. Accordingly, the matter has come up today before the Bench. Today, Ld. Counsel submits that he ils yet to receive any response from his clients to his advice for deposit.

2. Ld. SDR prays for rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

3. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am constrained to accept the plea of Ld. SDR. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. The appellants will, however, be at liberty to move the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal in accordance with law after compliance, with the above provision of law.