2008 (9) TMI 721 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with the deposit order of Rs. 15 lakhs by the appellants.
2. Preliminary objection raised by the learned SDR regarding the withdrawal of the writ petition by the appellants.
3. Argument by the learned advocate regarding the repeated fixation of the matter for 10 years and the withdrawal of the writ petition.
4. Interpretation of the order by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad regarding the withdrawal of the writ petition.
5. Consistency of the proceedings and objections raised during the final disposal of the appeals.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the non-compliance of the appellants with the deposit order of Rs. 15 lakhs. The learned SDR raised a preliminary objection regarding this non-compliance, emphasizing that the appellants had not deposited the amount as directed by the Tribunal. The matter had been ongoing for a significant period, with repeated adjournments due to various reasons, including the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the interim order.

2. The learned SDR further argued that the appellants had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for withdrawal of the writ petition after the appeals were fixed for final disposal by the Tribunal. The withdrawal of the writ petition led to the observation by the High Court that all interim relief stood vacated, including the stay order, necessitating the direction for the appellants to first deposit the due amount.

3. In response, the learned advocate contended that the matter had been pending for 10 years, awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat on the writ petition. The Tribunal, considering the age of the appeals, decided to list them for final disposal without insisting on a pre-deposit. The withdrawal of the writ petition was sought based on the fact that the appeals were listed for final disposal before the Tribunal.

4. The judgment also delves into the interpretation of the order by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, where the withdrawal of the writ petition was granted as the appeals had already been fixed before the Tribunal. This decision further supported the argument made by the learned advocate regarding the withdrawal of the writ petition based on the listing of the appeals for final disposal.

5. Throughout the proceedings, it was noted that the matters were repeatedly adjourned with the consent of the Department's representative, without any objections raised. The Tribunal observed that the stay order was deemed to have been modified, especially considering the age of the appeals and the lack of purpose in keeping them on record. The objections raised by the learned SDR regarding the deposit of the amount were deemed unsustainable, leading to the disposal of the preliminary objection in favor of the appellants.