2015 (9) TMI 463 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Tribunal has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the condition of pre-deposit. - SSI Exemption - use of brand name (Cellonex) of distinct entity - manufacturing the grinders, mixers and parts thereof - Held that - We do not see how after the Petitioner on his own approaches the Tribunal and seeks sympathy and equity by urging that the Appeal be restored to the file and heard on merits that the Petitioner now can file another Writ Petition and seeking the same reliefs from this Court. It was open for the Petitioner to seek restoration of the Appeal before the Tribunal. Having filed the restoration application claiming that the order of pre-deposit passed in the year 2001 by the Tribunal is complied with belatedly, but not pressing the application for restoration that the Petitioner cannot approach this Court and in writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition seeks the very relief which was the subject matter of the restoration application in the Tribunal. That having been voluntarily withdrawn we do not see how third Writ Petition is maintainable. Having found that the present Writ Petition is gross abuse of this Court s jurisdiction, the order of pre-deposit passed in the year 2001 was complied with belatedly and the restoration application was not pressed before the Tribunal we dismiss this Writ Petition with costs quantified at ₹ 25,000/- - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Abuse of writ jurisdiction by the Petitioner.
2. Claim of exemption from duty payment on manufactured goods.
3. Allegations of contravention of Central Excise Act and Rules.
4. Dismissal of Appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit condition.
5. Non-compliance with court order for duty liability deposit.
6. Dismissal of subsequent Writ Petitions for non-compliance and lack of changed circumstances.
7. Withdrawal of restoration application before the Tribunal.
8. Seeking equitable relief from the Court after withdrawal of restoration application.
9. Legal principles and judgments cited by the Petitioner for sympathetic view.

Analysis:

1. The High Court found the Writ Petition to be an abuse of writ jurisdiction due to the Petitioner's conduct in seeking relief and not complying with court orders. The Petitioner claimed to be a manufacturer of domestic appliances under a specific brand name and sought exemption from duty payment under a notification. However, allegations of contravention of excise laws were made, leading to a demand for duty payment and penalty imposition.

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, which the Petitioner did not dispute. Subsequent Writ Petitions were filed but dismissed for non-compliance with court orders. The Petitioner then withdrew a restoration application before the Tribunal, leading to further complications in seeking relief.

3. The Court highlighted the Petitioner's inconsistent actions in seeking equitable relief from both the Court and the Tribunal without following through on compliance with orders. Legal precedents cited by the Petitioner were deemed irrelevant to the current case due to the unique circumstances and lack of merit in the Petitioner's conduct.

4. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, considering it a gross abuse of the court's jurisdiction. The Petitioner was ordered to pay costs to the Respondents, emphasizing the importance of adhering to court orders and procedures in seeking legal remedies.