2009 (8) TMI 1052 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - pre-deposit - Held that - The present applications are for restoration of the appeals which already stand dismissed for non-compliance. The appellants have not shown any compliance with the stay order, in which case only the appeals can be restored - The direction to deposit only duty amount, without insisting on pre-deposit of penalty amount, cannot be held to be undue direction, so as to modify the stay orders passed by the Tribunal - ROA application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of Applications for non-compliance with stay orders.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved the restoration of applications filed by M/s. Shree Sanand Textile Industries Ltd. and M/s. Karan Fibres & Fabrics Ltd. after their appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the stay orders. The Tribunal had initially directed the appellants to deposit the duty amounts within a specified period, based on the examination of facts and evidence on record, which revealed that the appellants did not have a prima facie good case in their favor. Subsequently, the appellants failed to comply with the orders, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.

In response to the dismissal, the appellants filed Restoration of Applications (ROAs), which were considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the service of notices in the cases of both appellants and decided to restore the appeals, giving them additional time to make the required deposits. However, when the matter was brought up again to verify compliance, it was found that the appellants had not deposited the amounts and had instead filed modification applications, which were rejected. The appellants expressed their inability to make the deposits even with more time granted.

The Tribunal, considering the arguments presented by both sides, upheld the earlier findings that the appellants lacked a prima facie case in their favor and emphasized the need to safeguard the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the direction to deposit only the duty amount, without requiring the pre-deposit of penalty amount, was not an undue directive. The Tribunal found no merit in modifying the earlier stay orders and decided to reject the ROA applications, thereby upholding the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the stay orders.

Overall, the judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with tribunal orders, the significance of prima facie findings, and the balance between the interests of the appellants and the Revenue in such cases.