2010 (9) TMI 202 - HC - Central Excise

Noncompliance of the order directing pre-deposit - The order directing pre-deposit was a subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 2195/2009 filed before this Court. During the pendency of the said petition, appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 11th June, 2010 for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 2195/2009 came to be dismissed vide order 21st June, 2010 holding it to be infructuous. Now under order dated 6th August, 2010, the respondents have attached the goods of the appellant. The appellant has now filed present appeal challenging the orders dated 11th June, 2010, 3rd September, 2009 together with attachment order dated 6th August, 2010 and prayed for interim reliefs in terms of prayers made in the appeal. - Held that - the appellant was guilty of keeping the petition pending for seven months and not obtaining appropriate orders from the writ Court. It was not obligatory on the Tribunal to grant further time for compliance of order of pre-deposit without there being any such request from the appellant before expiry of the time already fixed by it. The appeal was, thus, rightly dismissed for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Challenge to the dismissal of the appeal in the High Court.
3. Arguments regarding the delay in pursuing the writ remedy.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal for failing to comply with the order directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 3 crore under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's delay in complying with the pre-deposit order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant challenged this dismissal in the High Court.

Issue 2: The appellant argued in the High Court that the Tribunal should have waited for the outcome of the challenge to the pre-deposit order in the Writ Petition before dismissing the appeal. The appellant contended that the dismissal of the appeal was a breach of natural justice and should be set aside. However, the respondent opposed this argument, highlighting the deliberate delay by the appellant in pursuing the writ remedy.

Issue 3: The High Court considered the delay in pursuing the writ remedy and referred to the principle of utmost expedition in seeking legal remedies. The Court cited the appellant's failure to explain the delay in moving the Court promptly and obtaining appropriate orders. The Court emphasized that the appellant's inaction in pursuing the writ remedy demonstrated gross delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The Court also noted that the appellant's refusal to comply with the pre-deposit order without conditions left no option but to dismiss the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court found no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and dismissed it for want of compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Court's decision was based on the appellant's significant delay in pursuing the writ remedy and failure to comply with the pre-deposit order. The Court's decision aligned with previous judgments where delays in seeking legal remedies were not tolerated, emphasizing the importance of expeditiously pursuing legal avenues.