2003 (6) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for restoration of appeal and modification of pre-deposit due to change in circumstances.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for restoration of appeal and modification of pre-deposit by M/s. Shreewood Products Pvt. Ltd. after their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that their properties worth Rs. 4,64,30,000 had been attached by the department, exceeding the pre-deposit amount, thus fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement. They proposed to keep the attached property as security against the pre-deposit and agreed to pay interest if they lost the appeal. The appellant cited a previous case where a similar offer was accepted by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the department opposed the prayer, stating that the dismissal of the appeal meant the department could initiate steps to recover the dues. The department emphasized that actions taken to realize dues did not equate to compliance with the Tribunal's Stay Order. The department also mentioned that the Supreme Court had dismissed the appellant's SLP against the appeal dismissal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. Additionally, the Tribunal had previously dismissed the appellant's application for restoration of appeal.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal referred to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, which mandates the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied pending an appeal. The Tribunal had earlier directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount towards duty and penalty, with a deadline for compliance. Despite subsequent warnings and show cause notices, the appellant failed to comply, leading to the final dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had also dismissed the SLP due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, solidifying the dismissal's finality. The Tribunal clarified that once an appeal is dismissed, the Revenue can take steps to recover the confirmed duty and penalty. The attachment of goods by the Revenue was deemed unrelated to the Tribunal's Stay Order since the appeal had already been dismissed. The Tribunal distinguished the cited case from the present situation, emphasizing the dismissal of the appeal in the current matter. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for restoration of the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.