2022 (10) TMI 748 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty - Application for modification of order - failure to pay deposit amount - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - It is clear that the appellant is deliberately not depositing the amount of Rs.50 lacs despite getting extension of time to deposit from the Hon ble Supreme Court. Initially this Tribunal while ordering for pre-deposit in the year 2011 had specifically observed that non-deposit of the amount would result in automatic dismissal of the appeals without any further notice to the appellants but still so many opportunities were granted to the appellant to deposit the amount but of no avail. Such a contumacious conduct of the appellant cannot be tolerated. In the facts of the instant case we have left with no other option but to dismiss the Appeal filed by the Appellant for non-compliance of the order of this Tribunal as affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to penalty imposition of Rs.3.5 crores by the Commissioner Adjudication, failure to deposit Rs.50 lacs as directed by various courts, non-compliance with pre-deposit orders leading to dismissal of appeals.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed challenging the penalty imposed by the Commissioner Adjudication. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.50 lacs within 12 weeks as a condition for hearing the appeal. Non-deposit would result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. The appellant failed to comply and filed applications for modification, which were dismissed. The High Court and later the Supreme Court upheld the pre-deposit order, extending the time for deposit. Despite extensions, the appellant did not comply with the pre-deposit order.

2. The appellant's conduct of deliberately not depositing the required amount despite multiple directives from the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court was condemned. The Tribunal expressed disappointment over the appellant's non-compliance, stating that the appellant had been given numerous opportunities to fulfill the pre-deposit condition but failed to do so over an 11-year period. The Tribunal noted the appellant's repeated attempts to avoid complying with the pre-deposit order.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's persistent failure to adhere to the pre-deposit order, even after extensions granted by the highest courts, demonstrated a lack of respect for legal directives. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's conduct, characterized by deliberate non-compliance with court orders, warranted dismissal of the appeal. Despite clear warnings of dismissal for non-compliance, the appellant did not fulfill the pre-deposit requirement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. Given the appellant's continuous defiance of court orders and the confirmed validity of the pre-deposit directive by the High Court and Supreme Court, the Tribunal had no choice but to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's persistent non-compliance. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's contumacious conduct and disregard for legal obligations left no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order as upheld by the higher courts.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of challenge to penalty imposition, failure to deposit the directed amount, and subsequent non-compliance with pre-deposit orders leading to the dismissal of the appeal.