2016 (10) TMI 572 - HC - Central Excise

Modification of the order - Waiver of the pre deposit - Negative net worth of the company - the petitioner failing to convince the Tribunal that the entirety of the pre-deposit should be waived, the petitioner was not entitled to carry an application for modification on the basis of an order of a Coordinate Bench or an order of the Supreme Court which could have been relied upon on October 28, 2015 - The doctrine of precedents as it is applicable to a Tribunal is primarily founded on the larger public policy of the requirement an element of certainty of the outcome in a set of circumstances - the application for modification admitted that the fact that the petitioner company had a negative net worth had not been brought to the notice of this Honble Tribunal earlier - the petition is utterly unmeritorious and is dismissed with costs assessed at ₹ 10.000/-. - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Failure to modify a previous order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal based on a different view taken by a coordinate Bench.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit an additional sum for the appeal to remain stayed. The petitioner failed to comply with this direction and instead applied for modification of the order, citing a previous order of the West Zonal Bench where pre-deposit was waived due to negative net worth. However, the Supreme Court order referred to did not establish a binding precedent for complete waiver of pre-deposit in cases of negative net worth.

The High Court emphasized that the Supreme Court order did not mandate complete waiver of pre-deposit for companies with negative net worth. It was noted that the petitioner failed to present reasons for not making the deposit during the initial hearing. The Court highlighted that precedents are not usually applicable to interlocutory orders unless the facts are identical, as discretion in such orders is based on specific circumstances rather than general principles.

The Court concluded that the petitioner, having failed to convince the Tribunal during the initial hearing, was not entitled to seek modification of the order based on subsequent references to other judgments. The lack of explanation for not raising the negative net worth issue earlier was also noted. The judgment emphasized the importance of not revisiting admission orders on weak grounds to ensure timely processing of appeals.

Ultimately, the Court found the petition unmeritorious and dismissed it with costs. The parties were directed to receive certified copies of the order upon compliance with formalities.