2020 (3) TMI 1097 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Today, Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the requisite amount in terms of Section 35F of the Act - If that be the position, we have no alternative but to dismiss the IA. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of writ petition due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Prayer to direct the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal.
3. Dismissal of IA No. 02 of 2019 due to inability to pay the requisite amount.
4. Application to stay the notice of demand issued by respondent no. 3.
5. Rejection of the stay order application due to lack of challenge to the notice of demand.

Analysis:

1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as the petitioner did not deposit the required amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

2. IA No. 02 of 2019 sought to direct the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal upon the petitioner depositing the necessary amount within a specified timeframe. However, the petitioner expressed an inability to pay the required sum, resulting in the dismissal of IA No. 02 of 2019 by the Court.

3. The Court, upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, dismissed IA No. 02 of 2019 due to the petitioner's inability to fulfill the financial requirement mandated by Section 35F of the Act. The inability to pay the requisite amount led to the dismissal of the application seeking restoration of the appeal.

4. IA No. 04 of 2019 was an application to stay the notice of demand issued by respondent no. 3. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the notice of demand had not been challenged thus far, raising doubts about the Court's authority to grant a stay order in the absence of any challenge to the notice.

5. The Court, considering the lack of challenge to the notice of demand, dismissed IA No. 04 of 2019, emphasizing that without a challenge to the demand notice, there was no basis for the Court to issue a stay order. The absence of any challenge to the notice of demand led to the rejection of the application seeking a stay order.