2015 (7) TMI 28 - AT - Central Excise

Non compliance of direction given in stay order - applicant was directed to pre-deposit 50% of the amount of duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority - Held that - the applicant submits that they have deposited only ₹ 30 Lakh. He further submits that they have filed an application before the Hon ble High Court for extension of time for compliance of the stay order. We find that the Hon ble High Court by order dated 10.10.2014 extended the time for compliance of the stay order up to 31.12.2014. However, the applicant neither produced the compliance report nor any further order from the Hon ble High Court. - appeal is dismissed for non-compliance - Decided against assessee.

Issues: Stay order modification, Compliance with pre-deposit orders, High Court directions

The judgment pertains to a case where the applicant was directed to pre-deposit a certain amount of duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed the application for modification of the stay order but extended the compliance period. Subsequently, the High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue, imposing costs on the appellant. The Tribunal then ordered the applicant to pre-deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe. The appellant filed another application for modification, resulting in a revised pre-deposit amount and compliance deadline. The High Court further extended the compliance period in response to the appellant's challenge. However, the appellant failed to fully comply with the pre-deposit requirements by the extended deadline, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with any order, as confirmed by the Court.

Regarding the stay order modification issue, the Tribunal initially dismissed the application for modification as lacking merit but extended the compliance period. Subsequently, the High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter, imposing costs on the appellant. The Tribunal then issued revised orders for pre-deposit amounts and compliance deadlines based on subsequent applications for modification by the appellant. Despite the High Court extending the compliance period further, the appellant failed to provide the required compliance report or any additional orders from the High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with any order.

In terms of compliance with pre-deposit orders, the applicant was directed to pre-deposit specific amounts within defined timeframes on multiple occasions. Despite various extensions granted by the Tribunal and the High Court, the appellant only deposited a portion of the required sum and failed to meet the extended compliance deadline. This failure to fully comply with the pre-deposit requirements ultimately led to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with any order, as determined by the Court.

Regarding the High Court directions issue, the High Court intervened in response to the appellant's challenges, extending the compliance period on multiple occasions. While the High Court provided extensions to allow the appellant to meet the pre-deposit conditions, the appellant failed to submit the necessary compliance report or further orders from the High Court within the extended timelines. As a result, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with any order, as confirmed by the Court.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of complying with pre-deposit orders and court directives in legal proceedings. Despite multiple opportunities provided by the Tribunal and the High Court to meet the pre-deposit requirements within extended timelines, the appellant's failure to fully comply resulted in the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with any order, emphasizing the significance of adhering to court-mandated obligations in such matters.

← Previous Next →