1999 (1) TMI 344 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Pre-deposit requirement for appeal.
2. Compliance with High Court orders.
3. Financial hardship and factory closure.
4. Tribunal's authority to modify pre-deposit conditions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Pre-deposit requirement for appeal:
The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duties totaling Rs. 42,72,021.15 and Rs. 1,03,63,709.24 confirmed by lower authorities. The appellant argued that the demand was based on differential duty for block boards cleared during specific periods and cited a Supreme Court decision on classification. However, the main contention was on the limitation period for the demand.

2. Compliance with High Court orders:
The Collector (Appeals) had ordered a pre-deposit of 70% of the confirmed duty, which was modified by the Guwahati High Court to 50%. The appellant failed to comply with this modified order, leading to the dismissal of their appeals by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the High Court's order was binding and should have been implemented or challenged appropriately. The appellant's failure to comply with the High Court's directive was a significant factor in the Tribunal's decision.

3. Financial hardship and factory closure:
The appellant argued financial hardship due to the closure of their factory and sought a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal acknowledged that in similar cases, it had directed appellants to deposit around 25% of the total dues. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the High Court's order was specific to this case and had to be respected unless modified by the High Court itself.

4. Tribunal's authority to modify pre-deposit conditions:
The Tribunal was divided on whether it could independently modify the pre-deposit conditions set by the High Court. The Judicial Member held that the High Court's order was binding and could not be circumvented by the Tribunal. In contrast, the Technical Member argued that the Tribunal had the authority to set its own pre-deposit conditions, considering the overall facts and circumstances. The Technical Member proposed a reduced pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs for the two cases, respectively.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
- Judicial Member's View: The appellant should deposit 50% of the total duty confirmed and seek the High Court's approval for any modifications. The High Court's order was binding and could not be disregarded.
- Technical Member's View: The Tribunal had the authority to set its own pre-deposit conditions. Considering the financial hardship and factory closure, a reduced pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs was appropriate.

Third Member Decision:
The Third Member concurred with the Technical Member, directing the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 25 lakhs against the demand of Rs. 1,03,63,709.24. The Tribunal's majority judgment conditionally allowed the stay petitions subject to compliance with the direction given by the Technical Member.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's final decision required the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 25 lakhs, considering the financial hardship and factory closure, while maintaining respect for the High Court's order. The stay petitions were conditionally allowed based on this pre-deposit requirement.

← Previous Next →