2011 (9) TMI 568 - HC - Central Excise

Demand - sub-Rule (3A) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 - payment of duty for each consignment - Held that there being no inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in passing the order dated 5th June, 2006 and the said order having attained finality as the appellant did not challenge the said order, it is not competent for the appellant to plead before us that it has the right not to comply with the directions contained therein and at the same time, it can avoid the consequences prescribed under the law for non-compliance of a binding order passed under the Act - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Dispute regarding non-compliance with the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 5th June, 2006.
3. Legality of orders demanding central excise duty, interest, and penalty.
4. Challenge to Tribunal's order dated 26th July, 2011 for non-compliance with pre-deposit order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged two orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal affirmed the demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalty against the manufacturer. The appellant contended that the initial order dated 5th June, 2006, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, was illegal. However, the Court held that since the appellant did not challenge the order dated 5th June, 2006, it had attained finality, and the appellant cannot dispute its legality in subsequent proceedings. The Tribunal rightly upheld the demand as the appellant failed to comply with the directions in the Assistant Commissioner's order.

2. The dispute arose due to the appellant's non-compliance with the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 5th June, 2006, directing payment of central excise duty. The appellant argued that the order was not in accordance with the law. However, the Court found that there was no lack of jurisdiction in the Assistant Commissioner passing the order, and since the appellant did not challenge it, they cannot avoid the consequences of non-compliance. The Tribunal correctly rejected the appellant's objection for non-compliance with the order.

3. The orders demanding central excise duty, interest, and penalty were challenged by the appellant. The Commissioner of Central Excise had directed the appellant to pay the duty, interest, and imposed a penalty for non-compliance with the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Tribunal affirmed these demands, stating that the appellant's failure to comply with the directions in the order dated 5th June, 2006, justified the demands. The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's orders dated 25th April, 2011, and 26th July, 2011, dismissing the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order.

4. The appellant also challenged the Tribunal's order dated 26th July, 2011, for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. Consequently, the Court summarily dismissed the appeal, deeming it devoid of substance. The urgent xerox certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the parties upon compliance with formalities.