9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 201 - AT - Central ExciseApplication of deferment of order of pre-deposit - appellants contend that since these appellants have only recently approached the High Court, their appeals should not be dismissed for default in pre deposit - Held that - No merit in the contentions of those appellants, who argue that their appeals should not be dismissed for failure of pre deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, merely since they had chosen to prefer appeals against the order dated 11.7.2014. It is axiomatic that an order of CESTAT, interim or final including an order directing pre deposit, is an operative order. It is subject however to appellate or judicial review scrutiny, by the High Court. The order dated 11.7.2014 considered the merits of the appeals as also the financial distress pleaded by some of the appellants; and that is the reason why the specified quanta of pre deposit were ordered in respect of each of the appellants, though no prima facie case was found in their favour. The pre deposits ordered are not even of the whole of the duty liability assessed in respect of the each of the appellants let alone the interest and penalty components. - various appeals dismissed for failure of pre deposit.
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of adjudicated liability confirmed in a common adjudication order. 2. High Court's intervention in the order directing pre-deposit. 3. Compliance with pre-deposit orders by various appellants. 4. Appellants approaching the High Court against the order for pre-deposit. 5. Dismissal of appeals for failure of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed several applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudicated liability confirmed in a common adjudication order. The order dated 11.7.2014 directed specific amounts to be pre-deposited by each appellant within a stipulated time frame, considering the contentions, defences, and financial difficulties presented by the appellants. The order required compliance as a condition for waiver of pre-deposit and the balance of duty, penalty, and interest confirmed by the impugned adjudication order. 2. M/s Rameshwaram Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. approached the High Court against the order directing pre-deposit of a specified amount. The High Court found no illegality in the order dated 11.7.2014 and granted three months for pre-deposit, emphasizing the need for compliance within the extended timeline. 3. Notably, M/s Gopal Steel complied with the pre-deposit order by depositing the specified amount within the stipulated time, as evidenced by the filed challans. Compliance was duly recorded for this appellant. 4. Various appellants, including M/s Seleno Steels Ltd., M/s Maa Kali Alloy Udyog Pvt. Ltd., B.S. Sponge Pvt. Ltd., M/s Raigarh Ispat & Power Ltd., M/s Scania Steels & Powers Ltd., and M/s MSP Steel and Power Ltd., had been directed to pre-deposit specific amounts and had approached the Chhattisgarh High Court against the order. However, the Tribunal found no merit in their contention that the appeals should not be dismissed for failure of pre-deposit due to their appeal filing, emphasizing that the order dated 11.7.2014 was operative and subject to appellate review. 5. The Tribunal reiterated that the pre-deposits ordered were necessary obligations to be complied with unless a Superior Court issued an order overriding the CESTAT obligations. The appellants were required to pre-deposit the specified amounts and report compliance by the specified date, unless a Superior Court intervened or extended the compliance timeline. The Tribunal dismissed certain appeals for failure of pre-deposit and compliance, as mandated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, responses, and outcomes concerning the waiver of pre-deposit and compliance with the adjudication orders by the appellants, as well as the High Court's intervention and the Tribunal's stance on dismissal for non-compliance.
|
