2013 (9) TMI 506 - AT - Customs

Modification of stay order non-compliance with Section 129E - Held that - The application had not made out a prima facie case for modification - liable to be rejected in limine - There was no reason for non-compliance with stay order - reason stated in the letter was that the appellant s counsel was preoccupied with some other work today could not be accepted - miscellaneous application appears to be re-agitating of the issues with obvious purpose of obtaining complete waiver of pre-deposit - there was none present to move the application - the conduct of the appellant can hardly be appreciated court followed the judgement of Baron International Ltd. vs. Union of India (2003 (9) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY) decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit directive, modification of stay order, dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with Customs Act

The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, delivered by Mr. P.G. Chacko, addressed the issue of non-compliance with a pre-deposit directive. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 1.5 lakhs towards penalty within six weeks, but failed to report compliance as per the Assistant Registrar's report. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order and disposal of the appeal without pre-deposit. However, the appellant did not have representation during the proceedings, and their adjournment request was based on insufficient grounds. The tribunal found no reason to modify the stay order as the application did not establish a prima facie case for modification. The tribunal cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Baron International Ltd. vs. Union of India to support their decision.

The judgment further dealt with the dismissal of the miscellaneous application and consequently, the appeal for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act due to the absence of proof of pre-deposit. Despite the appellant's attempt to obtain a complete waiver of pre-deposit through the application, the tribunal found the conduct of the appellant unacceptable. The tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for failing to comply with the statutory requirements of the Customs Act. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court by Mr. P.G. Chacko.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the tribunal's strict stance on compliance with pre-deposit directives and statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures in appeals before the tribunal.