1999 (8) TMI 656 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with pre-deposit order by the appellants.
2. Consideration of financial hardship and prima facie case on merits.
3. Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) orders and appeals filed by the assessees.
4. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Act and related Supreme Court judgments.

Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order:
The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the disputed amount as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Act within 15 days. Failure to comply led to dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance. Despite a subsequent personal hearing, where no proof of payment was presented, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order.

Financial Hardship and Prima Facie Case on Merits:
The appellants claimed strong prima facie cases on merits and severe financial crisis due to weak market conditions. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for dismissing the appeals without considering submissions, leading to multiple appeals and stay applications. However, the Tribunal observed that no documents were supplied to support the claim of financial hardship, and the appellate authority is required to form a prima facie impression at the stay application stage.

Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) Orders and Appeals:
The Tribunal analyzed judgments citing unreasoned orders and the need for reasons in decisions. It was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered issues and financial hardship before passing the order. The Tribunal found no merit in the plea that the orders were unreasoned or made without considering submissions, leading to the rejection of the prayer for unconditional stay and waiver.

Interpretation of Section 35F and Supreme Court Judgments:
The Tribunal discussed the provisions of Section 35F requiring deposit before appeal hearing and related Supreme Court judgments emphasizing compliance with such provisions. The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the appellate authority were not bad in law and must be complied with. The appellants were directed to file a bank guarantee for 50% of the confirmed duty, waiving the pre-condition of penalty deposit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the pre-deposit order, emphasized compliance with legal provisions, and directed the appellants to file a bank guarantee to secure the revenue, allowing for the appeal to be heard promptly.