Varron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 1421 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 4-9-2018
E\/87183\/2018 – A\/88213\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR)
\nORDER
\nPER: S.K. MOHANTY
\nHeard both sides.
\n2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 09.03.2018 has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, on the ground that the mandatory requirement of predeposit provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been complied with by the appellant. Since the appeal was rejected under Section 35A of <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n missions, if any, to be made by the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Varron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, KolhapurCentral Excise2019 (1) TMI 1421 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 4-9-2018E\/87183\/2018 – A\/88213\/2018Central ExciseMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides. 2. The … Continue reading “Varron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The above observations were recorder by the Bench, solely based upon the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant. However, on perusal of the case records, I do not find any evidence provided by the appellant in support of the stand that the requirement of Section 35F of the Act has duly been complied with. Thus, it seems that the appellant is very casual in its approach for seeking appellate remedy for resolving its dispute. It is expected that the person seeking justice from the appellate forum, should come forward with clean and clear evidences on facts, inasmuch as, appreciation of evidence is the domain of the original authority, who alleges the wrong doings of the as<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n