2016 (8) TMI 1293 - HC - Central Excise

Non-compliance with pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - the learned Tribunal has rightly held that there is no jurisdiction to modify its order dated 24-6-2014. The appeal filed by the appellant has been rightly dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the CEA 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for non-compliance of stay order; Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, penalty, and interest; Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Jurisdiction to modify tribunal's order; Compliance with court directions.

Analysis:
The case involves a challenge by M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi for non-compliance of a stay order. The Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit ?12.00 crores within four weeks, with compliance to be reported by a specified date. The appellant filed an appeal against this stay order, which was dismissed by the Chhattisgarh High Court, leading to further appeals.

The main issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concerning the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, penalty, and interest. The Tribunal had considered the question of undue hardship and ordered the appellant to deposit the specified amount, which the appellant contested on various grounds, including delay in the order and lack of consideration of certain aspects by the Tribunal.

The High Court analyzed the arguments presented by the appellant, emphasizing that the Tribunal's order was specifically related to the application for waiver of pre-deposit, not the appeal on merits. The court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.

Regarding jurisdiction to modify the tribunal's order, the High Court upheld the decision that there was no scope for modification and that the appellant's non-compliance led to the dismissal of the appeal. The court also referenced the Apex Court's order, which granted additional time for compliance but ultimately upheld the tribunal's directive.

In conclusion, the High Court found no substantial question of law to warrant interference with the tribunal's order. The central excise appeal by the appellant was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed. The court highlighted the specific facts of the case and distinguished it from precedents where different outcomes were observed, reinforcing the decision based on the circumstances and legal provisions at hand.