2015 (10) TMI 1024 - AT - Central Excise

Review petition - Waiver of pre deposit - Commission agent - Held that - petitioner/appellant claims to be a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of broker/ commission agent and that asserts that he did not acquire the possession of nor had physically dealt with excisable goods; that several show cause notices were issued to several parties on the basis of the records seized from the premises of such parties and the appellant was made a co-noticee in all those cases, for imposition of penalty under Rule 26. - What the petitioner seeks is clearly de novo consideration of the stay application. No grounds for review of the order dated 17.12.2013 are made out in this application. - Review denied.

Summary

Issues involved:
Review of order directing pre-deposit in an appeal; Claim of being a commission agent; Request for de novo consideration of stay application; Failure of pre-deposit leading to rejection of appeal.

Review of order directing pre-deposit in an appeal:
The judgment discusses an application seeking a review of an order dated 17.12.2013, which directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh within six weeks. The order was based on the observation that the appellant, a commission agent, maintained accounts in code language, indicating a questionable modus operandi. The order highlighted that failure to pre-deposit would prejudice the interests of Revenue, suggesting connivance with the evader. The review application failed to establish grounds for reconsideration, leading to its dismissal.

Claim of being a commission agent:
The petitioner/appellant claimed to be a proprietorship concern operating as a broker/commission agent, denying physical possession or dealing with excisable goods. The appellant was implicated as a co-noticee in cases where show cause notices were issued to other parties based on seized records. The assertion of not directly handling goods aimed to establish innocence in the matter.

Request for de novo consideration of stay application:
The petitioner sought a fresh evaluation of the stay application, indicating a desire for a complete reexamination of the circumstances. However, the judgment found no valid grounds for review in the application, leading to its dismissal. Consequently, the appeal was rejected due to the failure to comply with the pre-deposit directive.

Failure of pre-deposit leading to rejection of appeal:
The non-compliance with the pre-deposit order resulted in the rejection of the appeal. Despite the appellant's claims and the request for reconsideration, the failure to adhere to the initial directive led to the dismissal of the review application and subsequent rejection of the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements in such matters to ensure fairness and compliance with legal obligations.