2014 (5) TMI 412 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Company declared as sick unit - Financial hardships - Bar of limitation - Held that - issue is pending since 1994. Several orders have been passed by different authority at different stages. The tribunal s order requiring the entire amount by way of pre-deposit was never challenged by the petitioners further. Such order passed in the year 2001, thus became final. The petitioner could not comply with the directions. The appeals were also dismissed. Several applications were filed for modification of stay order/ restoration of appeals. Such applications were also dismissed. Last of such applications was dismissed on 22.1.2014. More than 10 years have passed in the meantime. No explanation is coming forth why such belated approach should be permitted before the Court. Merely suggesting that the petition though filed was not moved or that because of financial difficulties, the petitioner could not approach the High Court, would not be sufficient - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to CEGAT order dated 22.1.2004, delay and laches in filing petition, financial hardship as a ground for pre-deposit.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order passed by CEGAT dated 22.1.2004, which arose from a series of events starting with irregularities noticed by central excise officers in 1991. A show cause notice was issued in 1992, leading to an order-in-original in 1994 confirming duty demand and penalties. Appeals and subsequent orders followed, including a requirement to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in 1995. Despite various appeals and applications for modification or restoration, the tribunal's final order in 2001 requiring full pre-deposit was not challenged by the petitioners, leading to dismissal of appeals and subsequent applications. The petitioners' last application was dismissed in 2014, with the court noting gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, as the issue had been pending since 1994.

The court emphasized that the petitioners' belated approach after more than 10 years without a satisfactory explanation was not acceptable. While financial hardship could be a valid consideration for pre-deposit conditions, it was not sufficient to justify entertaining a writ petition after such a significant delay. The court highlighted that no other explanation was provided for the prolonged delay in approaching the court, and merely citing financial difficulties was not a satisfactory reason. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition based on the grounds of gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, emphasizing the need for timely and valid legal actions in such matters.