2012 (8) TMI 101 - AT - Service Tax

Application for modification of the stay order - waiver of pre-deposit Held that - Appellants have filed a writ petition against the stay order passed by the Tribunal and High Court had dismissed the writ petition - As the order passed by the Tribunal is merged with the order passed by the Hon ble High Court hence the Tribunal has no power to modify the stay order - order has granted time to make deposit as per the stay order passed by the Tribunal and the appellants had not complied with the directions of High Court - appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35 of the Central Excise Act - appeal are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for modification of stay order, demand confirmation, penalty imposition, waiver of pre-deposit, compliance with court orders.

Analysis:
1. Application for Modification of Stay Order:
The appellants filed an application for modification of the stay order dated 13.10.2011, which directed them to deposit Rs. 1 crore within 8 weeks for the hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal had granted time to report compliance until 30.01.2012. However, the appellants failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35 of the Central Excise Act.

2. Demand Confirmation and Penalty Imposition:
The appeal was filed against an adjudication order confirming a demand of Rs. 4,07,86,869 along with interest and imposing a penalty. Despite seeking waiver of pre-deposit of dues, the appellants were directed to deposit a substantial amount for the appeal hearing, which they failed to do, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Compliance with Court Orders:
The Hon'ble Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants against the stay order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, noting that its order had merged with the High Court's order, held that it had no power to modify the stay order. The appellants' non-compliance with the court's directions led to the dismissal of both the appeal and the miscellaneous application.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The failure of the appellants to adhere to the directives regarding the deposit amount for the appeal hearing resulted in the dismissal of their appeal. The decision underscores the significance of timely compliance with legal obligations in matters concerning stay orders and appeals in excise cases.