2012 (3) TMI 353 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of the pre-deposit - Appeal dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit order - Held that - appellant requested for more time for payment of pre-deposit of 20% of duty. Appellants should have applied to Hon ble CESTAT before expiry of deadline. This period expired on 09.08.10. Since more than six months have lapsed even after the deadline fixed by Hon ble CESTAT, the matter cannot be kept pending by this office indefinitely. Under such facts and circumstances, this office has no option but to reject the appeal once again for the failure of the appellant to comply with order of Hon ble CESTAT in time - Decided against assessee.

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit, Dismissal of appeal by first appellate authority

The judgment pertains to a stay petition filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal notes that this is the second round of litigation before them. They decide to dispose of the appeal along with the stay petition. The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit conditions set by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the appellant to make a deposit of 20% of the duty amount within a specified time frame. The appellant failed to comply within the given deadline, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal finds that the first appellate authority was correct in dismissing the appeal as there was no order from a higher judicial forum regarding the deposit directive. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses both the stay petition and the appeal filed by the appellants.

In this case, the primary issue revolves around the appellant's failure to comply with the pre-deposit conditions set by the Tribunal. The first appellate authority had granted conditional stay subject to the appellant making a pre-deposit of a specified amount. Despite being given multiple opportunities and extensions to fulfill the pre-deposit requirement, the appellant failed to adhere to the directives. The Tribunal, in its final order, had mandated the deposit of a specific percentage of the duty amount within a stipulated time frame. The first appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's persistent non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders. The Tribunal upholds the decision of the first appellate authority, emphasizing the importance of adhering to directives issued by judicial bodies.

The judgment underscores the significance of timely compliance with orders issued by judicial forums. The appellant's repeated failure to fulfill the pre-deposit conditions within the specified deadlines led to the dismissal of their appeal. The Tribunal highlights that the first appellate authority acted correctly in dismissing the appeal as there was no intervention or modification of the deposit directive by a higher judicial body. The legal principle of finality of orders is emphasized, indicating that in the absence of any contrary directive from a superior court, the decisions and directives of the Tribunal must be adhered to. The dismissal of the appeal serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with judicial directives and the importance of respecting and abiding by legal orders to ensure a fair and just legal process.

← Previous Next →