2013 (5) TMI 678 - AT - Central Excise

Non-compliance of orders of pre-deposit and provisions of Section 35F - allegation of modvat credit on G.P. sheets fraudulently availed - appellants submission that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant s plea for modification unsustainable as without providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity for submitting justification for seeking modification - Held that - In the circumstances no application for review of the said order, even if filed as an application for modification could have been entertained, as the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks jurisdiction to review his order. If the order rejecting the appellant application for modification is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it would revive the appellant s application for modification which is not maintainable, for lack of jurisdiction to review, conferred on the appellate authority. The order dated 07.08.2012 (rejecting the appeals), is also unassailable since the appellant failed to comply with the order dated 06.07.2011, directing deposit of the specified amount as the condition for grant of waiver of pre-deposit. Thus appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against orders-in-appeal dated 07.08.2012 for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions and Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeals were preferred against orders-in-appeal dated 07.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh-I, arising from orders-in-original dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-I. The appellant, M/s Zeto Engineering Pvt. Ltd., faced allegations of fraudulently availing modvat credit on G.P. sheets, leading to a show cause notice for recovery, interest, and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed interest and penalties. The appellant appealed against this decision, seeking a modification of the pre-deposit condition imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 06.07.2011, which required the deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the modification request on 13.07.2012, directing the appellant to deposit the amount within the specified time. As the appellant failed to comply with this order, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition and Section 35F of the Act.

The appellant contended that the rejection of the modification request and subsequent dismissal of appeals were unsustainable due to a lack of opportunity to justify the modification request and alleged violation of principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal found these contentions unconvincing. The waiver of pre-deposit granted by the appellate authority on 06.07.2011 was subject to the condition of depositing the specified amounts, and the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to review or modify this order passed under Section 35F. Therefore, the rejection of the modification request on 13.07.2012 was deemed valid. Similarly, the subsequent dismissal of appeals on 07.08.2012 for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition was upheld as the appellant failed to adhere to the specified deposit requirement.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no errors in the orders dated 13.07.2012 and 07.08.2012, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The decision was made without any order as to costs, affirming the importance of compliance with pre-deposit conditions and statutory provisions under the Central Excise Act, 1944.