2011 (8) TMI 208 - AT - Service Tax

Non compliance of the provisions of Section 35F - neither anybody is present on behalf of the appellant nor is there any compliance report on record. However, the appellant vide their letter dated 23.8.2011 have sought adjournment as the matter was pending before the Hon ble High Court - Again neither any copy of the writ petition filed before the Hon le High Court of Allahabad stands furnished before the Tribunal on two occasions, nor a copy of the stay order by the Hon ble High Court staying the operation of the stay order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs - We note that vide stay order the directions were made to the appellant on 21.2.2011 with the grant of eight weeks time from that date, time has since been expired long back - As the appellant could not produce any copy of the order of the High Court, even within a period of three months from the date of compliance and inspite of direction of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non compliance - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with stay order under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944; Non-compliance leading to dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs within eight weeks as per a stay order issued on 21.2.2011 under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite multiple hearings, the appellant failed to comply with the stay order or provide evidence of filing a writ petition challenging the order in the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant's request for adjournment due to the pending matter in the High Court was not supported by any documentation. The Tribunal noted the expiration of the time granted for compliance and the lack of High Court orders or writ petition copies. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appeal liable for dismissal due to non-compliance with the stay order and Section 35F of the Act.

2. The appellant, represented by an advocate, failed to appear or submit a compliance report regarding the stay order on multiple occasions. Despite seeking adjournment citing the matter being pending before the High Court, the appellant did not provide any documentation supporting this claim. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely compliance and the lack of evidence from the appellant even after three months from the initial stay order. Due to the appellant's failure to produce High Court orders or writ petition copies, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal must be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in conjunction with the stay order issued by the Tribunal.

3. The judgment, delivered by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Mathew John, highlighted the appellant's repeated failure to adhere to the directives of the stay order and the subsequent lack of evidence regarding the alleged writ petition filed in the High Court. Despite multiple opportunities given to the appellant to provide necessary documentation, the non-compliance persisted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the clear violation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the failure to produce relevant High Court orders or writ petition details, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for lack of compliance.