2009 (8) TMI 775 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Tribunal dismissed the stay application of the petitioner seeking waiver of the pre-deposit on the ground that appellant had not challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appeal which was filed by the petitioner contains so many deficiencies and therefore letters were written to remove those deficiencies - Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that prima facie the appeal was time barred - submission of the petitioner is that this order was received late and from the date of the receipt of the order appeal was filed within time - Held that - it was necessary for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 23-3-2004.

Summary

The High Court of Delhi, in a 2009 judgement by A.K. Sikri and Valmiki J. Mehta, JJ., considered an appeal by the petitioner against an adjudication order. The petitioner claimed that they did not receive the order from the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore could not comply with it. Subsequently, a recovery notice was issued by the revenue demanding interest for non-payment of duty. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking waiver of the pre-deposit amount of interest. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application based on the petitioner's failure to challenge the initial order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the deficiencies in the appeal. The High Court found that the petitioner's failure to challenge the Commissioner (Appeals) order and the deficiencies in the appeal meant that the waiver of pre-deposit was not accepted. The Court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated undue hardship. The judgement was ultimately dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the observations made in the order were tentative and should not influence the Tribunal's decision if the petitioner deposits the amount and the appeal is heard on its merits.