2010 (11) TMI 139 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal Dismissal for non-deposit of pre-deposit penalties earlier imposed on Directors of company who filed appeal along with appal by company, to CESTAT - CESTAT granted waiver of pre-deposit subject to one of the appellants, depositing a sum of Rs. 15 crores - order of CESTAT clearly shows that there was no direction to the appellants to make any pre-deposit of penalty imposed matter restored back to file Tribunal to decide stay application

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal and stay application without hearing the appellant.
2. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with the order of stay by another person (the Company).

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal and stay application without hearing the appellant
The High Court addressed the issue of whether the tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal and stay application of the appellant without hearing the appellant. The dispute arose from the order of CESTAT where the appeals were dismissed due to the appellants' failure to comply with the pre-deposit order. The High Court observed that the CESTAT could not have dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-compliance when there was no specific order directing the appellants to make any pre-deposit. The absence of such a directive rendered the dismissal unjustified. Consequently, the High Court quashed the CESTAT's order dated 8th March 2010 and restored the matter back to the CESTAT for a fresh decision on the stay applications filed by the appellants.

Issue 2: Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with the order of stay by another person (the Company)
The second issue revolved around the dismissal of the appeal by the appellants (ex-directors) for the Company's non-compliance with the order of stay. The CESTAT had granted a waiver of pre-deposit subject to the Company depositing a specified amount. However, the order did not direct the appellants to make any pre-deposit. The High Court emphasized that since there was no explicit instruction for the appellants to comply with the pre-deposit, their appeals could not be dismissed based on the Company's failure to do so. Consequently, the High Court quashed the CESTAT's order and instructed a fresh decision on the stay applications in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the procedural fairness and adherence to legal directives in dismissing the appeals and stay applications. By emphasizing the necessity of explicit orders and proper compliance procedures, the High Court ensured that the appellants' rights were upheld, leading to the restoration of the matter for further review by the CESTAT.