2010 (5) TMI 35 - HC - Central Excise

Stay / Waiver of pre-deposit section 35F of the central excise act, 1944 CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non compliance of stay order supreme court has also dismissed the petition of the assessee against the interim order of CESTAT and subsequent Allahabad High Court Order - Before us, Mr Rawal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the requirement of pre-deposit of duties was only in respect of the firm, i.e., M/s Novamet Industries and the said direction of making the pre-deposit had no application to the case of the appellants against whom there were only penalty orders. According to him, the application for pre-deposit and waiver filed by the present appellants had not even been considered by CESTAT in the first round, i.e., on 13.10.2008. All the four appellants had filed appeals before CESTAT. The said Tribunal had disposed of all the applications by a common order dated 13.10.2008. Three of the parties including the present appellants had filed appeals before the Allahabad High Court in which they did not make any averment that their applications had not been disposed of on merits. Similarly, even before the Supreme Court, they did not make any such averment. In fact before the Supreme Court the plea taken was a joint plea on behalf of the four appellants before CESTAT requesting that the direction to deposit a sum of Rs 15 crores be withdrawn and they be granted waiver of pre-deposit not only for duties but also for the penalties. - after the clear direction given by the Supreme Court by virtue of its order dated 30.03.2009, there can be no debate on the issue. The Supreme Court had made it clear that if the pre-deposit is not made within the extended period, it would open to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal has examined the matter and the pre-deposit not having been made, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals. The said order cannot be faulted Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeals against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance of pre-deposit order.
3. Review of orders by higher courts and subsequent dismissal of appeals.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeals were directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 21.05.2009. The appellants, including M/s Novamet Industries, Smt Sangeeta Bhalla, Shri Satish Bhalla, and Shri Vinay Jain, were aggrieved by the order-in-original No. 14/Commissioner/Noida/2008. The appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order issued in the stay applications filed by the appellants.

Issue 2:
Initially, the appellants had filed stay applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of duties and penalties demanded by the impugned order. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal directed the appellant company to deposit an additional amount within a specified period, failing which the pre-deposit requirement would not be waived. The appellants approached the Allahabad High Court seeking a modification of the deposit amount, which was partially allowed, reducing the required deposit amount.

Issue 3:
The appellants further filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition but granted an extension for making the pre-deposit. Despite the extension, the pre-deposit was not made, leading to the Tribunal dismissing the appeals. The Court observed that the appellants had opportunities to address the pre-deposit issue but failed to comply with the directions given by the higher courts. The Supreme Court's clear direction on the consequences of non-compliance left no room for debate, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with costs imposed on the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of complying with court orders, especially regarding pre-deposit requirements in appeals. The failure to adhere to such directives can result in the dismissal of appeals, as demonstrated in this case.