2003 (11) TMI 499 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with deposit order, appeal against stay order

Analysis:
1. Non-compliance with Deposit Order: The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within six weeks as per the stay order by the Tribunal, which was issued based on the direction of the High Court. Instead of complying, the appellants filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The High Court observed that the mere fact of incurring losses or factory closure is not sufficient grounds to reduce the deposit amount related to a tax liability already assessed. The High Court declined to interfere in the stay order and dismissed the Writ Petition. During the hearing, the appellant's representative admitted that the amount had not been deposited, and an appeal against the High Court's order was pending before the Division Bench without any stay order being granted.

2. Appeal Against Stay Order: The Tribunal noted that the mere filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the impugned order. As there was no compliance with the stay order issued by the Tribunal in conjunction with the High Court's order, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the settled legal principle that filing an appeal does not suspend the operation of the original order. Consequently, the failure to comply with the deposit order and the absence of a stay order from the Division Bench led to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The decision was based on the lack of justification for keeping the appeal on record due to non-compliance with the stay order directives.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of non-compliance with the deposit order and the dismissal of the appeal against the stay order due to the absence of a stay order from the Division Bench despite the pending appeal.