1999 (11) TMI 760 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 59/99-Cus. for non-compliance of Interim Order on pre-deposit.

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 59/99-Cus. issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore, which dismissed their appeal due to non-compliance with the Interim Order on pre-deposit. The Commissioner had directed the appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 25,000 out of the total penalty amount imposed on each of them, amounting to Rs. 65,000.

The Interim Order considered all grounds on merits and financial hardship while determining the pre-deposit amounts. The appellants did not raise any grounds in their stay application as to why they couldn't pre-deposit the amounts, nor did they provide any evidence of financial hardship.

The appellants' counsel argued that they were only carriers without sufficient means to pre-deposit the amounts. He expressed concerns about severe hardship and potential loss of their right to appeal if the appeals were dismissed for non-deposit. The counsel offered to pre-deposit Rs. 10,000 each on their behalf.

The opposing counsel highlighted that the appellants were apprehended at the airport carrying a significant amount of Travellers' Cheques and Indian currencies. He argued that the appellants had means to purchase those amounts and pointed out incriminating statements made by them. The Commissioner's decision to fix Rs. 25,000 out of Rs. 65,000 penalty imposed was deemed just, and since the appellants had not deposited the amounts, the stay applications and appeals were argued to be dismissed.

The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the Commissioner had considered all points, including voluntary statements and corroborative evidence, in the Order-in-Original. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had fixed the pre-deposit amounts after considering extenuating circumstances, and the amounts were not deemed excessive. The appellants were granted three months to pre-deposit the amounts, with the balance of penalties waived and recovery stayed upon deposit.

The matter was suggested to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure compliance with the pre-deposit directive and to proceed with the appeals after three months, without insisting on further deposit, to decide the case on merits after providing the appellants with a fair opportunity to be heard.