1990 (5) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Stay Order dated 25-5-1984.
2. Modification of Stay Order.
3. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
4. Res judicata applicability.
5. Prima facie case on merits.
6. Tribunal's power to modify interlocutory orders.
7. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Stay Order dated 25-5-1984:
The appellants were directed by the Tribunal to deposit Rs. 40,000 in cash and execute a bond for the remaining duty and penalty, with a bank guarantee for the balance, within six weeks from the date of the order. The appellants failed to comply with this order and repeatedly sought modifications or waivers, which were consistently denied by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

2. Modification of Stay Order:
The appellants filed multiple applications seeking modification of the Stay Order dated 25-5-1984 to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit. These applications were rejected by the Tribunal on various dates, including 30-8-1984, 4-10-1985, and 2-1-1986. The Tribunal maintained that the stay order could only be modified if new grounds emerged, which was not the case here.

3. Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty and Penalty:
The appellants contended that they had a strong prima facie case and cited subsequent orders where similar goods were held non-excisable. Despite these arguments, the Tribunal rejected their requests for waiver, emphasizing that the Supreme Court had already confirmed the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

4. Res Judicata Applicability:
The Tribunal held that the principle of res judicata applied, as the Supreme Court had already dismissed the appellants' appeal against the stay order. The Tribunal cited various cases to support this principle, noting that the issue could not be re-litigated.

5. Prima Facie Case on Merits:
The appellants argued that for a subsequent period, the authorities had held the product as non-excisable, which should be considered a strong prima facie case. However, the Tribunal found that this argument had already been presented in earlier applications and was not a new ground for modifying the stay order.

6. Tribunal's Power to Modify Interlocutory Orders:
The Tribunal acknowledged that interlocutory orders could be modified if new grounds emerged. However, since the Supreme Court had confirmed the stay order, the Tribunal held that it could not modify the order without new, substantial grounds, which were not present in this case.

7. Dismissal of Appeal for Non-compliance under Section 35F:
Given the appellants' continuous non-compliance with the stay order, the Tribunal found no alternative but to dismiss the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling that any failure to comply with the conditions of a stay order must entail dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the Stay Order dated 25-5-1984, as the appellants failed to deposit the required amounts and did not present new grounds to justify modification of the stay order. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of res judicata and upheld the Supreme Court's confirmation of the stay order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

← Previous Next →