2008 (9) TMI 764 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of stay order directing deposit of amount.
2. Applicability of earlier show cause notice on the current case.
3. Entertaining modification application after High Court's decision.
4. Compliance with High Court orders regarding deposit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Modification of stay order directing deposit of amount
The appellant sought modification of the stay order directing the deposit of Rs. 4 crores within a specified period. The appellant argued that the goods in question were already covered by an earlier show cause notice, which was adjudicated in their favor by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, this issue was not raised at previous stages of the proceedings. The learned SDR objected to the modification application, stating that the High Court had upheld the Tribunal's order, making the modification request untimely and reflecting the appellant's intention to avoid depositing the amount.

Issue 2: Applicability of earlier show cause notice on the current case
The appellant contended that the goods in question were covered by an earlier show cause notice adjudicated in their favor by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned SDR argued that the periods in the earlier proceedings and the present case were different, and the appellant's application lacked merit. The Tribunal noted that the issue raised was not part of the current proceedings or raised at previous stages, making it difficult to ascertain the factual position at a belated stage.

Issue 3: Entertaining modification application after High Court's decision
The Tribunal observed that its order had merged with the High Court's decision, making it impermissible to modify the High Court's order. The Tribunal reiterated that the issue raised in the modification application was not part of the current proceedings or raised at earlier stages, emphasizing that the demand periods differed between the previous show cause notice and the present case.

Issue 4: Compliance with High Court orders regarding deposit
The Tribunal held that the appellant was bound by the directions in the previous orders, confirmed by the High Court, to make the deposits within a specified period. As the appellant failed to comply with the High Court's orders, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order and the High Court's directive, rejecting the modification application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the original stay order directing the deposit of the amount, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court directives and rejecting the modification application due to untimeliness and lack of merit in the arguments presented.