Skip to content


Stretch Fibres (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)LC700DTri(Mum.)bai
AppellantStretch Fibres (India) Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....orders, this can be related. though in the reference, appellants have stated that they are filing appeal against the common order in respect of the five assessments but the order of the assistant collector of customs attached to the revision petition is no. s/8-273/77-78b dated 14.2.1978 only.3. however, without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the appeal for default of appearance exercising our discretion under rule 20 of the customs, excise & gold (control) appellate tribunal (procedure) rules, 1982.4. for the revenue, shri m chatterjee, jdr very vehemently contended that the appeal merited dismissal on more than one count as not only the appellants have not represented their case but non-filing of documents would also indicate that desire for prosecuting the.....
Judgment:
1. The appellants filed a revision petition before the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the common order dated 17.9.1980 passed in relation to five separate orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. The dates of such orders have been given by the Appellate Collector as follows:Customs Appeal File No. Order-in-Original No. & Date__________________________________________________________________________S/49-94/78 Bond S/8-273/77-78B dt. 14.2.1978S/49-95/78 Bond S/8-333/77-78B dt. 21.2.1978S/49-I26/78 Bond S/8-163/77-78B dt. 14.2.1978S/49-127/78 Bond S/8-334/77-78B dt. 14.2.1978S/49-70/78 Bond S/8-157/77-78B t. 14.2.1978 The Revision Application has been transferred to the Tribunal as appeal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 and is being heard as such.

2. Hearing notice for disposal of the appeal was sent to the appellants on 2.2.1983. However, on the case being called, we find nobody appearing for the appellants nor any request for adjournment. From a persual of the revision petition, we are not in a position to find as to in respect of which of the five assessment orders, this can be related. Though in the reference, appellants have stated that they are filing appeal against the common order in respect of the five assessments but the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs attached to the Revision petition is No. S/8-273/77-78B dated 14.2.1978 only.

3. However, without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the appeal for default of appearance exercising our discretion under Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

4. For the Revenue, Shri M Chatterjee, JDR very vehemently contended that the appeal merited dismissal on more than one count as not only the appellants have not represented their case but non-filing of documents would also indicate that desire for prosecuting the appeal is not there.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //