2014 (7) TMI 1243 - AT - Service Tax

Non-compliance with pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - As per the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court, when a matter comes up for compliance of pre-deposit and the appellant is before the Hon ble High Court, the appellant should be given 15 days time to get interim directions. In the present case, 15 days period got over almost five months back. Even though almost six months are over, the appellant has failed to get any interim directions from the Hon ble High Court and the appellant has been enjoying extension of stay without any valid reason - we dismiss the appeal of the main appellant, M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - As regards the co-appellants their stay petitions may be listed separately for hearing on 28th July, 2014 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994; Extension of stay without valid reason; Dismissal of main appellant's appeal; Listing of co-appellants' stay petitions for separate hearing; Disposal of department's early hearing application.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, delivered by Member (T) P.R. Chandrasekharan, addresses the issue of non-compliance with the pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 18 crores and report compliance by a specified date. Despite multiple extensions granted on the grounds of moving the Bombay High Court for interim directions, the appellant failed to obtain any such directions even after a significant period had elapsed. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the main appellant due to non-compliance with the statutory provisions.

Regarding the extension of stay without a valid reason, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had been enjoying extensions without obtaining the necessary interim directions from the High Court, as required by the legal procedure. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had exceeded the permissible time for obtaining such directions, and their failure to do so was considered a basis for dismissing the appeal.

In light of the dismissal of the main appellant's appeal, the Tribunal decided to list the stay petitions of the co-appellants separately for hearing on a specified date, providing an opportunity for their cases to be considered independently.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the department's early hearing application. Since the main appellant's appeal had been dismissed, rendering the early hearing application moot in that regard, the Tribunal directed the department to await the decision on the co-appellants' stay petitions before filing a separate application for early hearing, if necessary. The Tribunal disposed of the early hearing application accordingly, aligning it with the procedural developments in the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of complying with pre-deposit orders and procedural requirements, highlighting the consequences of extended non-compliance in legal proceedings. The judgment's meticulous consideration of each issue involved demonstrates a comprehensive approach to upholding the statutory framework and ensuring procedural fairness in the adjudication process.