2016 (6) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty - Non-remission of mandatory 7.5% of duty as required under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended - Held that - it is found that registry of the Tribunal issued defect memo dated 04.12.2015 to the applicants to produce proof of mandatory deposit. The applicant has not produced the proof of mandatory deposit till date after requesting the time. Therefore, after examining the provisions and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Kirti Industries vs. Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Silvasa 2015 (10) TMI 2451 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , the Tribunal has no power to entertain the appeal, unless the appellant furnish proof of payment of mandatory amount under Section 35 F of the Act. Therefore, stay applications are not maintainable. - Appeals dismissed as infructuous

Summary

Issues:
- Wavier of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty
- Condonation of delay
- Early hearing of appeals

Wavier of Pre-Deposit of Duty, Interest, and Penalty:
The applicants filed six miscellaneous applications seeking wavier of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty in relation to two appeals. Despite multiple hearing dates, the applicants failed to produce proof of mandatory deposit as required under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue argued that the applications and appeals should be dismissed due to non-compliance. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that without proof of payment of the mandatory amount, the appeal cannot be entertained. As the applicants did not provide the required proof, the stay applications were deemed not maintainable and dismissed as infructuous, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.

Condonation of Delay:
Two of the miscellaneous applications sought condonation of delay. The records indicated that the applicants were given multiple opportunities to produce the necessary documents, but they failed to do so. The Tribunal observed that the applicants had not complied with the mandatory deposit requirements, which led to the dismissal of the applications and subsequent dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set in a previous case where the Tribunal had directed the return of an appeal due to non-compliance with mandatory deposit provisions.

Early Hearing of Appeals:
Two miscellaneous applications also sought early hearing of the appeals. However, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the stay applications due to non-compliance with mandatory deposit requirements rendered the early hearing applications moot. The Tribunal found that without proof of payment of the mandatory amount under Section 35 F of the Act, the appeals could not be entertained. Therefore, the early hearing applications were disposed of accordingly, and both appeals were ultimately dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case emphasized the importance of compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Failure to provide proof of payment of the mandatory amount resulted in the dismissal of the applications for wavier of pre-deposit, condonation of delay, and early hearing, ultimately leading to the dismissal of both appeals.