9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application for adjournment due to unavailability of senior advocate, requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, consideration of waiver of pre-deposit, disposal of appeal on merits in accordance with law.
Adjournment Request: The advocate sought adjournment due to the unavailability of the senior advocate, Shri Arshad Hidayatulla, who was preoccupied with a case before the Bombay High Court. The JCDR opposed the adjournment request, emphasizing the need for the case to proceed on a day-to-day basis and to address the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F. The advocate suggested examining the necessity of pre-deposit as a preliminary issue, which was rejected by the Tribunal citing the mandatory nature of pre-deposit under the Central Excise Act. Pre-Deposit Requirement: The Tribunal highlighted that pre-deposit under Section 35F is mandatory unless specifically waived by the Tribunal or the High Court. While an interim stay order was in place, the Tribunal noted that no order dispensing with pre-deposit had been issued by either the Tribunal or the High Court. The appellant's application for waiver of pre-deposit was pending, and the Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement before the appeal could be considered on merits. Grant of Adjournment with Conditions: Considering the unavailability of the senior advocate, the Tribunal granted the adjournment request subject to the condition that the appellant must pre-deposit Rs. 10,00,00,000 within ten days out of the total demanded duty amount. The hearing of the appeal was scheduled for a specific date, contingent upon the appellant's compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The Tribunal ensured that the adjournment terms aligned with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F. Disposition of Appeal: The Tribunal's decision to grant adjournment with pre-deposit conditions aimed to balance the appellant's request for a delay in proceedings with the legal obligation to adhere to the pre-deposit requirement. By setting specific terms for adjournment, the Tribunal sought to uphold the principles of law while accommodating the appellant's circumstances, ensuring that the appeal process proceeded in accordance with legal mandates.
|
