1999 (3) TMI 92 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Validity of dismissal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance.
3. Interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
4. Applicability of the Apex Court's judgment in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
5. Relevance of trade notices issued by the Central Government.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The petitioners were required to deposit specific amounts as directed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 35F, which necessitates the pre-deposit of the duty demanded. The Tribunal upheld this requirement, stating that the appeals could only be heard on merits if the appellants showed proof of pre-deposit.

2. Validity of Dismissal of Appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) for Non-Compliance:
The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellants did not comply with the pre-deposit directions, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, emphasizing that the appeals were dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 35F. The Tribunal's order to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) was conditional on the appellants showing that they had pre-deposited the disputed duty amount.

3. Interpretation of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998:
The petitioners argued that their appeals were pending and should be considered under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise clarified that since the Tribunal's conditional order was not fulfilled, the appeals were not pending. Therefore, the declaration under Section 95(ii)(c) of the Scheme could not be entertained.

4. Applicability of the Apex Court's Judgment in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi:
The petitioners cited the Apex Court's judgment in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi to argue that appeals could be admitted without pre-deposit. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that Section 35F of the Central Excise Act provides a conditional right of appeal that necessitates pre-deposit unless undue hardship is proven. The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) acted within their discretion, and the appeals were rightly dismissed for non-compliance.

5. Relevance of Trade Notices Issued by the Central Government:
The petitioners relied on a trade notice suggesting that pre-deposit is not a condition precedent for filing an appeal. However, the Court clarified that this notice pertains to the procedural aspects of filing appeals and does not override the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F. The trade notice must be read in its entirety, and it does not apply to cases where appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders.

Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed with costs, as the appeals were not pending due to non-compliance with the Tribunal's conditional order. The Court upheld the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F and found no merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and the trade notice. The dismissal of the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal was affirmed, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory provisions to safeguard revenue interests.