1997 (1) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excises Act, 1944 and direction to lift detention order under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed an application seeking restoration of appeals E/812, 813, and 814/95-A, which were dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excises Act, 1944, and requested the Assistant Commissioner to lift the detention order dated 24-12-1996 issued under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal had earlier passed stay orders requiring the appellants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 7 crores in cash and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 3 crores, which was later reduced by the High Court to Rs. 5 crores and Rs. 2 crores, respectively, with extended deadlines. Despite multiple extensions and allowances for installment payments, the appellants failed to comply with the deposit requirements, leading to the dismissal of the appeals on 16-12-1996 in accordance with Section 35F of the Act.

2. The appellants, through their counsel, argued that the company was facing severe financial difficulties, and due to a detention order, they were unable to raise funds to make the required deposit. They requested a stay on the detention order and sought time to deposit the required amount in January 1997. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had delayed the process for over 1.5 years without making substantial deposits, indicating a lack of bonafide intentions. The counsel's statement that no deposit could be made unless the detention order was withdrawn further weakened their position. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to grant any relief, emphasizing the appellants' prolonged non-compliance and dismissing the application for restoration of the appeals and stay of the detention order.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal, after considering the appellants' financial constraints and prolonged non-compliance with deposit requirements, refused to grant the requested relief. The Tribunal highlighted the appellants' delay tactics and lack of substantial deposits over an extended period, leading to the dismissal of the appeals in accordance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises Act, 1944. The application for restoration of the appeals and stay of the detention order was ultimately dismissed due to the appellants' failure to meet the deposit obligations despite numerous opportunities and extensions provided by the Tribunal and the High Court.