1986 (8) TMI 284 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Application under Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for rejection of appeal due to non-compliance with Stay order.
- Request for grant of time to comply with terms and conditions of Stay order.
- Interpretation of Section 35-F of the Act regarding deposit of duty pending appeal.
- Comparison with a similar provision in Customs Act, 1962.
- Decision on application for rejection of appeal for non-compliance with Section 35-F.

Analysis:
1. The Collector of Central Excise filed an application under Section 35-F of the Act seeking rejection of an appeal by M/s. Vidharba Pharmaceutical for non-compliance with a Stay order. The Stay order required a 50% deposit of duty demanded and a bank guarantee for the balance within eight weeks. The appellant failed to comply with these terms, leading to the application for rejection of the appeal.

2. The appellant requested additional time to fulfill the conditions of the Stay order, citing difficulties in compliance. The Departmental Representative opposed the request, emphasizing that non-compliance with Section 35-F renders the appeal non-maintainable. The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted the appellant's previous unsuccessful attempt to modify the Stay order.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Section 35-F, which mandates the deposit of duty pending appeal unless dispensed with by the adjudicating authority. The definition of "pending" was discussed, clarifying that an appeal is considered pending from its commencement. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the appeal would not be heard until 1987-88, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the provision.

4. Referring to a similar provision in the Customs Act, the Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's interpretation regarding the deposit requirement pending appeal. The Court's stance on non-compliance leading to appeal rejection was cited to support the decision in the present case.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the Collector's application for rejection of the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement of Section 35-F and the terms of the Stay order. The decision aligned with the legal precedent and the necessity of adhering to statutory provisions for maintaining the appeal's validity.