2013 (5) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Predeposit towards penalty - as per the stay order in the event of deposit of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the company there would be waiver and stay in respect of the penalty imposed on the Managing Director and the balance amount of penalty on the company. - Held that - In the absence of evidence of pre-deposit of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the assessee, their Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Managing Director s appeal will be disposed of in due course.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
2. Errors in the cause-title of the Stay Order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application by the department in response to appeals filed by an assessee-company and its Managing Director. The bench had previously directed the company to pre-deposit Rs. 50,000 towards penalty, noting the payment already made. However, the company failed to comply and sought a reduction in the deposit amount through a miscellaneous application. The bench, upon reviewing the application and noting the absence of any representation by the company, rejected the request for reduction, leading to the dismissal of the company's appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Managing Director's appeal remains pending for future disposition.

2. The second issue addressed in the judgment concerns errors in the cause-title of the Stay Order issued by the bench. The stenographer had inaccurately entered the appeal numbers and omitted the Managing Director's name, displaying carelessness in typing the order. Additionally, incorrect dates for compliance reports were noted. To rectify these mistakes, the stenographer was directed to retype the Stay Order accurately. The amended order would be renumbered by the registry, and certified copies would be provided to both parties for record-keeping purposes. This issue was resolved, and the department's application addressing the errors was disposed of by the bench.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of compliance with statutory requirements, such as pre-deposit obligations under the Central Excise Act, and emphasizes the need for accuracy in legal documentation to avoid errors and ensure procedural correctness.