2011 (2) TMI 1070 - AT - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - Modification of stay order - application does not disclose any change of circumstance since the stay order was passed - Application rejected - Held that - Tribunal shall first make prima facie, enquiry whether application needs consideration on merits. 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. Modification of stay order requiring pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within 8 weeks.
2. Lack of change in circumstances since the stay order was passed.
3. Application filed after the prescribed period for making the deposit.
4. Compliance with Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issue of modification of a stay order that directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within 8 weeks. The appellant sought modification of the stay order, claiming no change in circumstances since the order was passed. However, the Tribunal noted that the application did not disclose any change of circumstance and merely reiterated previous submissions. The Tribunal highlighted that the application was filed after the prescribed period for making the deposit, which led to the rejection of the application based on the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal's Larger Bench decisions.

The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble High Court's judgment emphasizing the need for a preliminary inquiry to determine if there is a prima facie case for modification before considering applications on merits. In line with this ruling, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application as it found no prima facie case for modification of the stay order. Additionally, the judgment noted the absence of evidence regarding the pre-deposit of the required amount, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of demonstrating a change in circumstances for seeking modification of a stay order and highlighted the necessity of complying with the prescribed timelines and legal provisions, such as Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act. The judgment underscored the need for a prima facie inquiry before considering applications on merits to avoid wasting resources and time, as outlined in the Hon'ble High Court's directive.