9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1212 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit - Penalty - Held that - the Hon ble Apex Court vide its order dated 12.12.2008 has directed the applicants to make the pre deposit within the period of 10 weeks. Admittedly, the applicants have not made compliance of the directions of the Hon ble Apex Court. In the absence any extension of time by the Hon ble Apex Court, this Tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants for not compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - Application dismissed.
Issues:
Application for restoration of appeals after non-compliance with pre-deposit order. Analysis: The applicants filed an application for restoration of appeals after failing to comply with the pre-deposit order issued by the Tribunal. Initially, the Tribunal directed the applicants to make a pre-deposit of ?65 Lacs within six weeks, in addition to the amount already deposited. The applicants challenged this order in the High Court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's order but extended the time for the pre-deposit by 10 weeks. However, the applicants did not comply with this direction and instead filed an application for modification of the stay order, which was rejected. The Tribunal then dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicants eventually made the pre-deposit but after the extended time granted by the Supreme Court had lapsed. Despite paying the disputed duty amount, interest and penalties were not deposited as per the impugned order. The applicants argued that since they paid the entire disputed duty amount, their appeal should be restored, citing a precedent case. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicants did not pay interest and penalties as required by the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was essential, and since the applicants failed to fulfill this requirement, their applications for restoration of appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal found no merit in the applications due to the non-compliance with the statutory provisions.
|
