2014 (4) TMI 794 - AT - Central Excise

Extension of stay order - Stay order vacated by High Court - Held that - As we have already noted, this order waived predeposit in view of the fact that no duty demand had since been quantified. Now that the duty demand stands quantified and the party s W.P. stands dismissed, our Order dated 23.01.2009 will have no force. This apart, the stay Order did not grant any stay of recovery either - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of stay of recovery requested by the appellant.
2. History of the case proceedings, including the pre-deposit amount and subsequent developments.
3. Effect of dismissal of writ petition on pre-deposit requirement.
4. Validity of the interim order waiving pre-deposit.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought an extension of the stay of recovery until the final disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that they had not granted a stay of recovery in the past, making the extension request irrelevant. The appellant's plea for an extension was dismissed due to the absence of a prior stay of recovery.

2. The Tribunal provided a detailed account of the case's history, emphasizing the pre-deposit requirement of Rs. Five lakhs imposed on the appellant. Despite a temporary stay granted by the High Court, the Tribunal eventually waived the pre-deposit due to the lack of quantified duty demand. However, with the dismissal of the writ petition, the pre-deposit requirement was reinstated, as the appellant acquiesced to the pre-deposit condition.

3. Following the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant's challenge against the pre-deposit requirement was considered withdrawn. The quantification of the duty demand post-dismissal rendered the previous order waiving pre-deposit ineffective. The Tribunal clarified that the earlier order had no force after the duty demand was quantified, and no stay of recovery was granted.

4. The Tribunal reiterated the necessity for the appellant to pre-deposit the specified amount within seven days and report compliance. The dismissal of the appellant's application was based on the established facts and circumstances, emphasizing the appellant's obligation to comply with the pre-deposit requirement. The counsel for the appellant acknowledged the directive for compliance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for an extension of the stay of recovery, reiterating the pre-deposit obligation and highlighting the impact of the dismissal of the writ petition on the case proceedings.