1998 (5) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of Stay Order directing payment of Rs. 2 lakhs by the appellant.
2. Suppression of facts by the applicant during the appeal process.
3. Failure to disclose High Court's order in the Stay Application.
4. Applicant's conduct in seeking discretionary relief.
5. Compliance with High Court's order for pre-deposit of confirmed duty.

Analysis:

1. The Appellate Tribunal received an application from the Revenue requesting the recall of a Stay Order directing M/s. Assam Frontier Wood Products Ltd. to pay Rs. 2 lakhs within a specified period. The Tribunal dispensed with the rest of the duty demand and stayed its recovery subject to the initial deposit.

2. The applicant's Advocate made an offer to pay the additional amount of Rs. 2 lakhs without disclosing crucial facts. The Advocate argued that the applicant had challenged previous orders before the High Court, and the Commissioner of Central Excise had issued directives regarding pre-deposit of confirmed duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for not following the High Court's orders.

3. The applicant failed to disclose the sequence of events and facts, including the High Court's order, during the Stay Application process. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not bring these developments to their attention when the Stay Order was passed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of full disclosure and clean conduct when seeking discretionary relief.

4. The applicant's representatives admitted the lapse in not disclosing all relevant facts but claimed it was unintentional. They agreed to pre-deposit 50% of the total confirmed duty as per the High Court's orders.

5. After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal modified the Stay Order, increasing the pre-deposit amount to 50% of the total confirmed demand as per the High Court's orders. The Tribunal emphasized that the High Court's order had finality, and the applicant should have sought modification directly from the High Court if facing difficulties in compliance. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit the required amount within a specified period and advised them to seek approval from the High Court for the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application, highlighting the importance of transparency, compliance with court orders, and seeking appropriate legal remedies for any challenges faced during the appeal process.