2014 (1) TMI 323 - AT - Central Excise

Adjournment due to unavoidable circumstances Restored stay petition and appeal Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The stay petition is of 2010 and the stay petition was heard with other stay petition filed and assessee was directed to deposit some amount - On compliance of which, the appellant was granted a waiver but the assessee did not comply with the order - the appellant moved an application for restoration of appeal which was heard on 12.03.13 and the stay petition and appeal was restored - Since this is a restored stay petition and appeal, the adjournment sought by the appellant s declined - Following Shri Mafatlal Harkchand Shah Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad 2013 (12) TMI 217 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - appellant directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000 as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjournment sought in a stay petition.
2. Non-compliance with previous orders by appellant.
3. Restoration of appeal after non-compliance.
4. Pre-deposit amount directed by the tribunal.

Adjournment sought in a stay petition:
The appellant's counsel sought an adjournment in a stay petition, citing unavoidable circumstances for their absence. However, the tribunal declined the adjournment request due to the prolonged nature of the case. The tribunal noted that the stay petition dated back to 2010 and highlighted that the appellant's case was previously heard alongside another party, M/s. Shital Tubes Pvt. Ltd., who failed to comply with the tribunal's order. Consequently, both M/s. Shital Tubes Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal and the appellant's appeal were dismissed. Despite a subsequent restoration application, the tribunal found no grounds to grant the adjournment, considering the history of non-compliance in the case.

Non-compliance with previous orders by appellant:
The tribunal mentioned that M/s. Shital Tubes Pvt. Ltd. did not adhere to the tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of their appeal and subsequently affecting the appellant's case. The appellant faced dismissal due to the non-compliance of the related party, emphasizing the importance of following tribunal directives to maintain the integrity of the legal process and ensure compliance with orders issued.

Restoration of appeal after non-compliance:
Following the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance, the appellant filed an application for the restoration of the appeal. The tribunal considered this application and restored the stay petition and appeal after a hearing on 12.03.13. Despite the restoration, the tribunal maintained a strict stance on compliance, directing the appellant to pre-deposit a specific amount within a specified timeline to proceed with the case further.

Pre-deposit amount directed by the tribunal:
Considering the circumstances and previous non-compliance issues, the tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000 within eight weeks from the specified date. The appellant was required to report compliance by a set deadline, after which further orders would be issued. The tribunal allowed the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining amounts involved, with recovery stayed until the appeal's final disposal, subject to the compliance being reported.