2018 (3) TMI 1746 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - rejection on the ground that the Appellants delayed in complying with the directions of the Hon ble High Court - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the appellant company paid ₹ 37,08,462/- towards 50% of the Service Tax component only on 9-4-2014, i.e., two days after the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal for non-compliance. The bond required to be furnished in terms of the order dated 5-12-2013 passed in CEA No. 39 of 2013 was submitted only on 10-6-2014 - The aforestated undisputed facts clearly demonstrate that the appellant company was utterly negligent in complying with the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, by this Court, notwithstanding the specific time stipulations mentioned therein. Further, the appellant company was well aware that the Appellate Tribunal had made it clear that in the event it failed to deposit 50% of the assessed tax liability plus proportionate interest within eight weeks from the date of the order, the stay would stand dissolved. Having failed to safeguard its own interest by complying with the conditional stay orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, by this Court, the appellant company cannot seek further indulgence. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the appellant company did not at least deposit 50% of the Service Tax component immediately after receiving the order dated 5-12-2013. This Court finds no grounds whatsoever to interfere in the matter - application for Restoration of Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Compliance with conditional orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.
2. Failure to execute a bond within the specified time frame.
3. Delay in compliance with the directions of the High Court.
4. Seeking restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance.
5. Grounds for interference by the Court in the matter.
6. Condonation of delay in compliance with the order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Conditional Orders
The appellant company failed to comply with the conditional orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. Despite clear instructions to deposit 50% of the assessed tax liability within a specified time frame, the company neglected to adhere to these directives, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 2: Failure to Execute a Bond
Furthermore, the appellant company did not execute a bond covering 50% of the interest component within the stipulated period, as directed by the High Court. This failure to fulfill the requirements outlined in the orders demonstrated a lack of diligence on the part of the company.

Issue 3: Delay in Compliance
The appellant company exhibited significant delays in complying with the directions of the High Court, further complicating the situation. The failure to adhere to timelines and submit the necessary documents within the specified deadlines reflected poorly on the company's commitment to fulfilling its obligations.

Issue 4: Seeking Restoration of Dismissed Appeal
Despite the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal for non-compliance, the appellant company attempted to seek restoration through various applications. However, the Tribunal and the Court refused to restore the appeal due to the company's consistent failure to meet the prescribed conditions.

Issue 5: Grounds for Interference by the Court
The Court found no merit in the appellant company's claims challenging the dismissal of the appeal and the refusal to restore it. The Appellate Tribunal's decisions were deemed justified based on the appellant company's repeated non-compliance with the orders.

Issue 6: Condonation of Delay
The Court dismissed the appellant company's applications seeking condonation of the significant delay in compliance with the orders. The additional delays in filing petitions and representing cases further weakened the company's position, leading to the rejection of their appeals.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with legal directives and the consequences of failing to meet obligations set forth in court orders. The appellant company's consistent negligence and delays were deemed unacceptable, resulting in the dismissal of their appeals.

← Previous Next →