2018 (2) TMI 1388 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Mandatory deposit under 35F of Central Excise, 1944 - Held that - no pre-deposit has been made by the appellants as required under section 35F of the Central Excise, 1944. When mandatory pre-deposit has not been made by the appellants, then appeals are not maintainable - applications for Restoration of Appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to make mandatory pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 leading to dismissal of appeals.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves three appeals against a common order where the demand for Central Excise duty was confirmed, and penalties were levied by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal demanded a pre-deposit of ?5 crores from one of the appellants, which was not made, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal. The other appellants were given time to make the mandatory pre-deposit but failed to do so within the prescribed time. Consequently, their appeals were dismissed for violating the requirement under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The matter was taken to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which remanded the issue of pre-deposit back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal then reduced the penalty amount for certain appellants but they still failed to deposit the revised amount within the specified time. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals. Subsequently, the appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court again, seeking modification of the order regarding the deposit amount. The High Court directed them to deposit specific amounts by a certain date, failing which the appeals would remain dismissed.

The appellants further appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which eventually dismissed all three civil appeals. Despite this, the appellants made additional attempts by moving applications before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, seeking extension of time for pre-deposit. These applications were also dismissed. Finally, the appellants offered to provide a bank guarantee towards penalty payment, but the applications were withdrawn with liberty to approach the CESTAT.

In the end, the appellants filed applications for Restoration of Appeals, but since no pre-deposit had been made as required under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal dismissed all three applications for restoration as not maintainable.