2004 (3) TMI 683 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit.
2. Applicability of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Validity of subsequent decision by the Commissioner in relation to the appeal.

Restoration of Appeal:
The case involves an application for restoration of an appeal by M/s. Jay Rapid Rollers Ltd. that was dismissed due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order. The Appellate Tribunal had directed the deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs by a specified date, which the applicants failed to comply with. Despite being given an opportunity to restore the appeal by making the deposit within a set timeframe, the applicants did not fulfill this condition. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsequent decision by the Commissioner does not affect the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance. The Tribunal rejected the application for restoration, highlighting that the proper course of action for the applicants was to approach a higher Appellate forum if they were aggrieved by the Tribunal's orders.

Applicability of Rule 57CC:
The appellant argued that the demand against them should be dropped as a similar matter resulted in a demand being dropped by the Commissioner under an Order-in-Original. They contended that the applicability of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was misconceived and void ab initio due to changes in circumstances. The basis for the applicability of the rule was challenged, stating that the demand was no longer sustainable. The argument was based on the presumption that re-rubberizing is a manufacturing activity exempted from duty, which was no longer valid. However, the Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance stood, irrespective of subsequent developments or interpretations of rules by the Commissioner.

Validity of Subsequent Commissioner's Decision:
The respondent opposed the restoration of the appeal, highlighting that the applicants failed to comply with the Tribunal's directives regarding the pre-deposit. The respondent emphasized that the subsequent decision by the Commissioner was irrelevant to the appeal's dismissal for non-compliance. The respondent pointed out that the High Court did not order the applicants to approach the Tribunal for the appeal hearing. The respondent argued that the dismissal of the appeal was justified based on the non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders, and the subsequent decision by the Commissioner did not alter this outcome. The Tribunal concurred with the respondent's arguments and rejected the application for restoration of the appeal.