2011 (2) TMI 1068 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay by way of modification - modification of the Tribunal s order contain only grounds of review - Tribunal directed to make prima facie, enquiry whether application needs consideration on merits - Held that - If the Tribunal finds that prima facie case for modification is made out, then, only a Tribunal shall deal with such application on merits - application dismissed following the ruling of Baron International vs Union of India 2003 (9) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY & Jai Prakash Strips vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Nasik 2009 (6) TMI 620 - CESTAT, MUMBAI)- having found no prima facie case for the appellant for modification of our stay order, no evidence of pre-deposit of the aforesaid amount or any part thereof. Hence appeal is also dismissed for want of compliance with Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs.
2. Application for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay.
3. Request for adjournment and non-compliance with the direction.
4. Prima facie case for modification of stay order.
5. Dismissal of modification application and appeal for non-compliance with Sec. 35F.

Analysis:
1. The Bench initially directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 6 lakhs within 4 weeks. However, the appellant later filed an application seeking unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay modification. The compliance report was due on a specified date, but the appellant failed to comply, and their counsel requested an adjournment citing social work commitments. The Bench, noting non-compliance and absence of representation, denied the adjournment request due to lack of respect for the Tribunal.

2. Upon reviewing the modification application and hearing the ld. D.R., the Bench found no prima facie case for modification as per the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court in a specific case. The High Court emphasized the need for a preliminary inquiry by the Tribunal to determine if there are sufficient grounds for modification before proceeding to a detailed review. Following this guidance and a coordinating bench's decision, the modification application was dismissed.

3. The dismissal of the modification application led to the appeal's dismissal due to non-compliance with Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a prima facie case for modification, in line with the High Court's directive to avoid wasting time on frivolous applications. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and respecting Tribunal directives to ensure fair and efficient proceedings.