2019 (10) TMI 678 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Non-compliance with the pre-deposit - HELD THAT - It is seen that as the appellant did not deposit the directed amount, the appeal was again dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the directions of the Tribunal s order - It is seen that the appellant have not still deposited the amount as directed by the Tribunal, though they have deposited 10% of the penalty in terms of the amended provisions of Section 35F. In terms of the directions of the Tribunal the appellant was duty bound to deposit 75% of the penalty amount. Having not deposited the same, the appeal has rightly been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is of 1174 days. No justifiable and reasonable cause stands advanced by the appellant for such a delay in filing the appeal. The huge delays, especially when the appellant s appeal has no merits, cannot be condoned. The appeal dismissed itself as barred by limitation as also by observing that inasmuch as, the appellant has not honoured the Tribunal s directions, nothing survives in the appeal.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, Non-compliance with Tribunal's directions, Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance

Delay in filing appeal before Tribunal:
The judgment addresses a delay of 1174 days in filing/presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. The history of the case reveals that the appellant's appeal against a penalty imposition order was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with a stay order. Despite subsequent directions from the Tribunal to deposit 75% of the penalty, the appellant failed to do so, leading to further dismissals. The Tribunal notes the lack of any justifiable or reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal and emphasizes that such delays, especially when the appeal lacks merits, cannot be condoned. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Non-compliance with Tribunal's directions:
The appellant did not comply with the Tribunal's order to deposit 75% of the penalty amount, even though they had deposited 10% under amended provisions of Section 35F. The Tribunal highlights that the Final Order dated 18/03/2014, directing the appellant to make the deposit, was not challenged and had attained finality. As the appellant failed to adhere to the Tribunal's directions, the appeal was rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasizes the appellant's duty-bound obligation to comply with the Tribunal's directives, which, in this case, was not fulfilled.

Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance:
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to deposit the directed amount as per the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal reiterates that since the appellant did not honor the Tribunal's directions, there was no basis for the appeal to continue. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation and due to the appellant's non-compliance with the Tribunal's directives. The judgment concludes by disposing of the COD Application.