2007 (3) TMI 261 - SC - Central Excise

Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Extension of time period for making pre deposit - Held that - It is admitted position that inspite of granting several adjournments to the petitioner by this Court the amount directed by the High Court has not yet been deposited. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however submits that as the petitioner has already approached the BIFR it seeks some more time to comply with the order of the High Court. Considering this aspect of this matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that time to comply with the order of the High Court shall stand extended for a further period of three months from date. If such deposit is made within the time specified hereinabove the appeal shall be heard and disposed of on merits and in default the question of hearing of the appeal on merits may not arise at all - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Appeal filed before the Custom Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal for waiver of pre-deposit.
3. Writ application filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
4. Appeal before a Division Bench with an application for condonation of delay.
5. Non-compliance with the High Court's order for deposit.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a show cause notice demanding duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the duty and penalty, including personal penalties on individuals. An appeal was filed before the Custom Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal seeking waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal directed a deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal.

2. Subsequently, a writ application was filed challenging the Tribunal's order. An interim stay was granted on the condition of a partial deposit. The writ petition was later dismissed for non-prosecution. An appeal was then filed before a Division Bench with an application for condonation of delay, which was about 467 days. The Division Bench rejected the application for condonation but directed the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the appeal upon further deposit.

3. Despite several adjournments, the required deposit was not made as directed by the High Court. The petitioner sought more time due to approaching the BIFR. The Supreme Court extended the time for compliance by three months. It was emphasized that failure to make the deposit within the specified time would impact the hearing and disposal of the appeal.

4. In conclusion, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of with the extension granted for compliance with the High Court's order. The Court highlighted the importance of timely compliance to ensure the appeal's consideration on merits by the Appellate Tribunal.

This detailed analysis outlines the progression of the case, including the imposition of duties and penalties, the procedural steps taken by the petitioner, and the Supreme Court's decision regarding compliance with the High Court's order.