2015 (5) TMI 662 - HC - Central Excise

Modification of order - Held that - CESTAT, by the impugned order, rightly held that by virtue of the order dated 13.03.2013, the appeal stood dismissed. Admittedly, the order dated 13.03.2013 was not complied with by the appellant or by M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. It was a self operative order entailing the dismissal of the appeals in the event of the sum of ₹ 87,44,929/- not being deposited. The order had attained finality. - Even assuming that by the said order, the appellant herein was not directed to deposit the amount, the consequence of non-deposit was the dismissal of the appeal filed by the above appellants as well. The same has not been challenged now for two years. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rightly held that so long as the order dated 13.03.2013 is valid, the consequence of non-deposit is the dismissal of the appeal before the CESTAT. - Modification denied.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order dated 02.09.2014 passed by CESTAT.
2. Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance with deposit order dated 13.03.2013.
3. Contention of not being heard during the passing of the order dated 13.03.2013.
4. Liberty granted to pursue appropriate remedies against the order dated 13.03.2013.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against an order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the CESTAT, where it was held that an earlier order dated 13.03.2013 resulted in the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with a deposit requirement of &8377; 87,44,929 within a specified time frame. The order made it clear that failure to deposit the amount would lead to the dismissal of all appeals listed. This decision was based on the self-operative nature of the order, which had attained finality.

2. M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. also had their appeal disposed of by the same order dated 13.03.2013, and their subsequent application for modification was dismissed. The CESTAT directed notice to be issued to them as well, indicating that non-compliance with the deposit order would lead to dismissal. The appellant, along with M/s. Puneet Exports Inc., failed to comply with the deposit requirement, resulting in the dismissal of their appeals as per the order dated 13.03.2013.

3. The appellant contended that they were not heard during the passing of the order dated 13.03.2013 and argued that the deposit order was not directed against them but only against M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. However, even if this contention was valid, it would necessitate the modification or setting aside of the order dated 13.03.2013. The Tribunal explicitly granted the appellant the liberty to pursue appropriate remedies against this order, emphasizing that the appellant had the opportunity to challenge the order but had not done so to date.

4. Despite the appellant's argument regarding not being heard during the passing of the order and the direction of the deposit against another party, the Tribunal held that the impugned order did not prejudice the appellant as they were granted liberty to seek remedies against the order dated 13.03.2013. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of without raising a substantial question of law, given the liberty granted to pursue appropriate remedies against the earlier order.

← Previous Next →