1995 (5) TMI 41 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of application seeking modification of stay order and direction to deposit balance amount of pre-deposit.
2. Failure of petitioners to comply with Tribunal's order for pre-deposit.
3. Tribunal's decision to not modify the stay order.
4. Petitioners' request for waiver of balance pre-deposit amount.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged the dismissal of an application by CEGAT, New Delhi, seeking modification of the stay order and direction for the petitioners to deposit the balance amount of pre-deposit. The petitioners had initially requested waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty on seized goods, penalty, and redemption fine. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to pre-deposit the entire duty amount within 12 weeks, with a waiver of penalty and redemption fine if complied. However, the petitioners failed to comply with this order, leading to subsequent applications for modification of the stay order. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, concluded that the balance duty amount to be deposited was Rs. 2,73,945, and there was no justification for modifying the previous order.

Subsequently, the petitioners' counsel requested three months' time to pay the balance amount, which the Tribunal granted, allowing compliance within 3 1/2 months. The High Court, upon hearing the petitioners' counsel, found no merit in the petition. It noted the petitioners' failure to comply with the initial order, filing for modification after a significant delay, and the Tribunal's decision to grant an extension for payment. The Court held that the petitioners' conduct of not depositing the balance amount despite obtaining an extension did not warrant interference with the Tribunal's order. It emphasized the principle of waiver and estoppel, stating that the petitioners cannot now contest the payment of the balance pre-deposit amount after leading the Tribunal to believe they would comply.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no error in the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the petitioners' actions did not justify further agitation regarding the pre-deposit amount, as they had already been granted an extension for payment, and their conduct indicated no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's decision.