2014 (1) TMI 1333 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - tribunal dismissed the appeal for non compliance of stay order - Held that - The appellant is unable to point out any fact or press into service any legal provision that would raise an inference that permission, beyond the permissible limit, was granted. The appellant s plea that it applied for further permission on 09.03.2008, is irrelevant, as the appellant is unable to refer to any order accepting this application. As regards the appeal, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal for want of compliance - appellant s plea that as the unit has since closed down, the appellant has no funds, could have been relevant if the appellant had agreed to deposit some part of the duty claimed. In the absence of any such offer, the financial distress of the appellant cannot be considered - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order directing pre-deposit and dismissal of appeal by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellant, a hundred percent export-oriented unit, challenged the order by the Tribunal directing pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal. The appellant argued that exceeding the permissible clearance limit did not warrant duty imposition as their application for further permission was pending. The Tribunal required the appellant to pay duty on the excess clearance, which the appellant contested due to lack of permission for clearances beyond the limit. The Tribunal found no error in its decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence of permission for excess clearances. The appellant's claim of applying for further permission was deemed irrelevant without proof of acceptance. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, noting the appellant's failure to offer any partial payment despite claiming financial constraints due to unit closure. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with regulatory limits for export-oriented units and the significance of providing concrete evidence to support claims in legal proceedings. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of proof of permission for exceeding clearance limits, emphasizing the need for adherence to established regulations. The dismissal of the appeal underscores the consequences of non-compliance with pre-deposit orders and the necessity of fulfilling legal obligations even in challenging circumstances. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing duty imposition and the burden of proof on appellants to substantiate their claims effectively in judicial proceedings.