9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 697 - AT - Central ExciseStay application - Waiver of pre deposit - Doctrine of merger of order - Held that - Tribunal s order 2015 (5) TMI 568 - CESTAT NEW DELHI directing the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 12.00 Crores within a period of four weeks had been upheld by Hon ble Chattisgarh High Court 2015 (5) TMI 567 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT and an SLP against the Hon ble High Court s order had been filed. The Apex Court while dismissing the SLP 2015 (5) TMI 601 - SUPREME COURT had directed that the amount to be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. In view of this position, we are of the view that it is the Judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE vs. Lindt Exports reported in 2011 (9) TMI 609 - DELHI HIGH COURT which would be applicable and as such the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to modify its order dated 03.06.2014, which in our view, stands merged with the judgment of Hon ble Chattisgarh High Court, Hon ble Allahabad High Court in a recent judgement dated 12.11.2014 in case of Kissan Gramudyog Sansthan vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in Kissan Gramudyog Sansthan has held that once the appeal against Tribunal s stay order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is dismissed by a High Court, the Tribunal s stay order mergers with the High Courts order and the Tribunal cannot modify its stay order and extend the period of pre-deposit. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Tribunal's directive for pre-deposit of a specific amount within a set timeframe. 2. Appellant's request for rectification of an error in the stay order. 3. Appellant's plea for installment-based deposit of the directed amount. 4. Applicability of judgments allowing installment payments in similar cases. 5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to modify its order post High Court's decision. Analysis: 1. The Tribunal initially ordered the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 12.00 Crores within four weeks to comply with section 35 F. Despite subsequent appeals, including to the High Court and the Apex Court, the directive remained unchanged, leading to dismissal of the appeals due to non-compliance. 2. The appellant filed a Misc. Application seeking rectification of a mistake in the stay order, clarifying that the appeal was against an 'Order in Original' and not an 'Order in Appeal.' This rectification was allowed by the Tribunal. 3. Another Misc. Application was submitted by the appellant requesting permission to deposit the directed amount in 12 monthly installments. However, the Tribunal dismissed this application due to the non-compliance with the original directive. 4. The appellant cited precedents where installment-based payments were allowed post dismissal of appeals. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases as they did not involve challenges to the Tribunal's orders before High Courts, unlike the present situation. 5. The Tribunal, after extensive analysis, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to modify its order once upheld by the High Court and the Apex Court. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that the original directive must be adhered to, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with section 35F. In summary, the Tribunal's judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with its directives, especially when upheld by higher courts, and clarified the limitations on modifying orders post High Court decisions. The appellant's requests for rectification and installment-based payments were carefully considered but ultimately dismissed due to non-compliance with the initial directive.
|
