2009 (6) TMI 717 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Application for modification of stay order, differential treatment in stay application, violation of principles of natural justice, direction by Bombay High Court, similarity of facts with another case, contention of ex-parte order, consideration of merits, direction for deposit amount, modification of earlier order.

Summary:

1. The case involved an application for modification of a stay order passed by the Tribunal on 19-3-2008 in Stay application No. E/S/1838/07 in Appeal No. E/1572/07, following a directive from the Bombay High Court dated 4-9-2008 in Writ Petition No. 5641 of 2008.

2. The advocate for the applicants argued that their case was similar to others where complete waiver of pre-deposit was granted, citing a lack of natural justice due to the advocate's withdrawal before the lower authority. He also compared the case to a previous ruling involving M/s. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd.

3. The Departmental Representative contended that no new grounds were presented for granting relief at this stage, as all points were considered in the previous order.

4. The Tribunal had earlier directed the applicants to deposit a specific amount within four weeks, leading to a subsequent modification application which was rejected on 23-5-08.

5. The Bombay High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the order based on a previous case involving M/s. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the need for a fair decision.

6. The Tribunal examined the similarity of facts between the cases, noting differences in the nature of the orders and the compliance with directives.

7. The contention of an ex-parte order was refuted based on records showing the advocate's withdrawal due to lack of communication from the applicants, who also failed to respond to show cause notices.

8. The Tribunal clarified that the ruling in M/s. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. case could not be blindly applied to the current case due to differences in circumstances and merits.

9. The High Court's direction aimed at ensuring consistent criteria for similar cases, indicating that the Tribunal should follow established principles based on the facts presented.

10. Despite arguments for modification, the Tribunal found no justification for altering the earlier order, given the lack of new grounds or significant changes in circumstances.

11. Consequently, the application for modification was dismissed, and the applicants were directed to comply with the deposit requirement within eight weeks.

12. A compliance report was scheduled for 1-9-09 to monitor adherence to the Tribunal's directives.