2011 (3) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Predeposit - The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 12.04.2010 directed the appellants to deposit duty as well as penalty amount within 15 days from the receipt of the order - Ld. Advocate for the appellant had submitted that the appellants have already deposited 50% of the duty and penalty amount and are willing to deposit the balance 50% of the amount within four weeks - On such deposit of the balance amount, the impugned order shall stand set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal on merits - The appeal is accordingly disposed of

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement under Section 35 F of Central Excise Act, 1944.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the appeal arose from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, dated 12.04.2010, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the adjudicating authority dated 31.03.2009 due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority had confirmed a demand of Rs.41,049/- along with interest and an equal amount of penalty against the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to deposit the duty and penalty amount within 15 days from the receipt of the order, which the appellants failed to do, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellants then submitted that they had already deposited 50% of the duty and penalty amount and were willing to deposit the balance within four weeks. The Tribunal accepted this statement and directed the appellants to deposit the remaining 50% within four weeks. Upon such deposit, the impugned order would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits. However, failure to deposit the balance amount would result in the automatic revocation of the order passed in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal, through Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, emphasized the importance of complying with the pre-deposit requirement under the law and the implications of non-compliance on the appeal process. The judgment highlighted the consequences of failing to adhere to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s directives regarding the deposit of duty and penalty amounts within the specified timeframe. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order upon the appellants' compliance with the balance payment further underscored the significance of meeting the financial obligations imposed by the adjudicating authorities in such cases. The judgment served as a reminder of the procedural requirements and the necessity of timely and complete adherence to such requirements in matters concerning appeals related to excise duties and penalties.

Overall, the judgment provided a clear illustration of the legal consequences of non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements in excise matters, emphasizing the need for appellants to fulfill their financial obligations as directed by the authorities to ensure a fair and effective appeal process. The Tribunal's decision to grant a second chance to the appellants upon their commitment to fulfill the outstanding payment within a specified timeframe demonstrated a balance between enforcing compliance with legal provisions and allowing for remedial actions to rectify initial non-compliance.