2016 (6) TMI 438 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking waiver of pre-deposit - non compliance of the conditional order of stay - no finding rendered by CESTAT as to the existence or non-existence of undue financial hardship - Held that - taking note of the financial constraint expressed and the contentious issues raised in the appeals, we deem it fit that the appellant should be given an opportunity, to pursue the appeals before CESTAT, Madras, by extending the time, for compliance, i.e., to make pre-deposit of ₹ 3 lakhs and we are also of the view that no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent by directing extension of time. Three weeks time is granted from today for making pre-deposit of ₹ 3 lakhs, as ordered by the Tribunal. On making such deposit, stay petitions filed would stand restored. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeals disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against orders passed by Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay application before CESTAT.
3. Dismissal of appeals by CESTAT for non-compliance.
4. Filing of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (C.M.A) against final orders.
5. Existence of undue financial hardship.
6. Consideration of substantial questions of law.
7. Extension of time for compliance with pre-deposit order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s. Neycer India Limited, filed appeals and stay applications before CESTAT, Chennai, challenging orders by the Commissioner of Central Excise. CESTAT directed a pre-deposit of 3 lakhs rupees within six weeks, failing which the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance.

2. Subsequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (C.M.A) were filed against the final orders of dismissal by CESTAT. The appellant contended that CESTAT did not consider the existence of undue financial hardship, a crucial factor under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, when dismissing the appeals.

3. During the hearing, the appellant requested more time for the pre-deposit, emphasizing willingness to comply with the order. The Senior Standing Counsel for Customs argued that non-compliance justified the dismissal of appeals.

4. The Court noted that while the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance, CESTAT did not assess the presence of undue financial hardship. Considering the financial constraints expressed and the issues raised, the Court decided to grant an extension for compliance, allowing the appellant to pursue the appeals.

5. Consequently, the Final Orders of dismissal were set aside, and three weeks were granted for the pre-deposit as ordered by CESTAT. Upon compliance, the stay petitions would be restored, and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were disposed of with no costs.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the appeal process, pre-deposit requirements, considerations of financial hardship, and the final decision of the Court to grant an extension for compliance.