2011 (3) TMI 892 - AT - Central Excise

Right to appeal - Non compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act 1944 - Instead of getting the time extended repeatedly the appellant did not deposit the amounts in question within the time frame - The same was deposited after a gap of around two years - Appellants submits that the failure to deposit the amounts in question should not result in dismissal of appeals - He places reliance on the Tribunal decision in the case of Venus Electronics and Control Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs Kandla (2006 -TMI - 89833 - CESTAT MUMBAI) laying down that delay of over 10 years in complying with the pre-deposit order should not result in extinguishing the statutory right to appeal - The appellants are directed to deposit the above amount of Rs. Two lakhs within a period of six weeks and report compliance to Commissioner (Appeals) who would after ascertaining compliance with the above order decide the appeal on merits - Thus the Stay petition as also appeal get disposed off

Summary

Issues:
Non-compliance with stay order leading to dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent challenges before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant's failure to comply with the stay order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Initially directed to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs, the appellant failed to make the deposit and filed a modification application, leading to the appeal's rejection. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration of the modification application. Despite a reduction in the required deposit to Rs. 3 lakhs during the remand proceedings, the appellant again failed to make the deposit, leading to the appeal's dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) in 2005. Subsequent challenges and extensions of time for deposit were granted by the Tribunal, but the appellant continued to delay compliance.

The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the appellant's delayed deposits in 2009, well beyond the specified deadline of 2007. The Commissioner emphasized the importance of complying with the Tribunal's stay order and dismissed the appeal based on non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's history of non-compliance and delayed deposits over several years was highlighted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without delving into its merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding delays in depositing the directed amounts but stressed the statutory requirement of depositing confirmed dues before the appeal hearing, as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, emphasizing the appellant's obligation to comply with the directed deposits to maintain the right to appeal. While recognizing the appellant's right to appeal should not be extinguished solely due to late deposits, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit an additional Rs. 2 lakhs within six weeks to potentially restore their appeal, subject to compliance verification by the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the importance of complying with stay orders and statutory provisions, emphasizing the necessity of depositing confirmed dues before appeal hearings. The appellant's repeated delays in depositing the directed amounts led to the dismissal of the appeal, highlighting the significance of timely compliance with legal requirements in such cases.