2019 (8) TMI 599 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - compliance with the pre-deposit - HELD THAT - The main ground on which the appellant seeks indulgence of this Court is that after the impugned order of the CESTAT, the predeposit condition has been complied with in full. But what happens post facto cannot cure the defect. On the date on which the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT by the impugned order, the appellant had not complied with the pre-deposit condition. The impugned order as such is unassailable. It is only because of this fact that the appellant has subsequently complied with the conditional order. Therefore, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to dismissal of appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance with pre-deposit condition.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the dismissal of the appeal by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had initially sought an extension of time for complying with a conditional order passed by CESTAT confirming a demand for service tax amounting to ?84,98,221. Despite the dismissal of the application for modification, the appellant was granted an extension of time to make the payment. Subsequently, further extensions were granted by CESTAT, and the appellant filed an application for waiver of the pre-deposit condition. However, CESTAT rejected the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The appellant contended that the pre-deposit condition had been fulfilled after the impugned order. The Court held that compliance post facto cannot cure the initial non-compliance, as at the time of the dismissal of the appeal, the pre-deposit condition had not been met. Therefore, the Court found the impugned order to be valid and dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arose for consideration in the case.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of CESTAT to dismiss the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition at the time of the original order. The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely compliance with tribunal orders and highlights that subsequent compliance does not rectify initial non-compliance. The Court found no legal basis to challenge the dismissal of the appeal and dismissed the case accordingly, with no order as to costs.