2014 (3) TMI 593 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Non compliance of provision of Section 35F - Held that - The stay order having been passed in December 2011 and the appellant have not deposited even a single penny till date. We are of the view the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with deposit order, challenge to miscellaneous order

Compliance with deposit order:
The judgment revolves around the issue of compliance with a deposit order issued to the appellant. Initially, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,00,000 within a specified period as a condition for hearing their appeal. Despite extensions granted by the High Court and subsequent dismissal of their Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, the appellant failed to comply with the deposit order. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for installment payment, stating that it lacked the authority to modify the High Court order merged with the Supreme Court order. The non-compliance led to a notice being issued to the appellant, questioning why their appeal should not be dismissed. The appellant's challenge to the order was considered untimely, reflecting an intention to delay proceedings, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with statutory provisions and court orders.

Challenge to miscellaneous order:
Another key issue in the judgment is the appellant's challenge to a miscellaneous order rejecting their request for installment payment. The appellant's advocate filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging this order after a significant delay from the date of the Tribunal's order. The authorized representative for the respondent argued that the delay in challenging the order indicated an intent to delay proceedings and highlighted the appellant's failure to deposit any amount despite the passage of time. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent's contention, emphasizing the appellant's non-compliance with the deposit order and the merged court orders, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of complying with court orders, especially deposit orders, and the consequences of failing to adhere to such directives. The analysis highlights the timeline of events, the legal arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning for dismissing the appeal based on non-compliance with statutory provisions and court orders.