Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 875 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit - appellant was directed to pre-deposit the aforesaid amount within eight weeks from 11.4.2011 - appellant, if aggrieved, could have approached the Hon ble High Court much earlier than the date on which they actually moved the High Court.Further, when the matter arose before the Bench for report of compliance on 11.7.2011 - Decided against the assessee
Issues:
1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit order by the main appellant. 2. Request for further adjournment based on High Court's order. 3. Consideration of Director's stay application due to company's non-compliance. Analysis: 1. The main appellant, directed to pre-deposit a specific amount towards duty within eight weeks, failed to comply by the appointed date for reporting compliance. The appellant's counsel cited the pending appeal and stay petition before the High Court as reasons for delay. However, the Tribunal noted that ample time had already been given, and the appellant could have approached the High Court earlier. Despite the appellant's plea for further indulgence based on a High Court order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the Central Excise Act. 2. The Joint CDR argued against granting additional time, emphasizing that the original deadline for pre-deposit had passed before the compliance reporting date. The Tribunal acknowledged the validity of this argument, highlighting that the appellant had sufficient time to act before the specified deadlines. Despite the appellant's reliance on the High Court's order for adjournment, the Tribunal found no merit in further delaying the decision, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance. 3. In contrast, the Director of the company had obtained waiver and stay based on different grounds, contingent upon the company's pre-deposit. As the company failed to fulfill this requirement, the Director's stay application was deemed to be considered on its merits separately. The Tribunal directed the listing of the Director's stay application for a future hearing, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the Director's case independent of the company's non-compliance. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the Tribunal's adherence to legal procedures and the significance of timely compliance with court orders in the context of appeals related to duty payments and stay applications.
|