MOHINDRA AGRO INDUSTRIES Vs. C.C.E., JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed the present appeal against the Order dt. 9.3.2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. Shri B.D. Ghai, authorised representative of the applicant/appellant has stated that the letter dt. 6.1.2001 submitted by him has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. I have gone through the photo copy of the said order available on record and inter alia it is stated that ample opportunities of personal hearing were given on 4.9.2000, 25.9.2000 and 7.11.2000, but no one appeared. It is also stated in the Order -in -Appeal that the facts stated in the appeal were considered and it was found that the case was not fit for waiver of pre -deposit of the dues. Accordingly vide Interim Stay Order No. 199/KDT/CE/JPR/2000 dated 20.12.2000, their application for waiver of pre -deposit of dues was rejected and the applicants was dire ted to deposit the due within three weeks time from the date of passing of the stay order. It is further stated that personal hearing for reporting compliance was fixed on 2.2.2000 but no one appeared and there is also no communication, hence the case is taken up by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) recalled tat there is no proof of compliance of the Interim Stay Order. As the appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by not depositing the due within the period stipulated in the aforesaid Interim Order, the appeal has been rejected for non -compliance of the same. While rejecting the appeal of the party, he also cited the following decisions of the Tribunal supporting his action.

(2.) THE ld. JDR, Shri J. Singh, appearing for the Revenue argued that since the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non -compliance of the said Interim Order, the application of stay has no force and as such same may be dismissed.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I do not find any substantive reasons to grant stay in the matter. Accordingly, the stay application filed by the applicant/appellant is rejected.