2014 (2) TMI 1182 - HC - Service Tax

Extension of time to make the pre deposit - Held that - indulgence was granted to the applicant to deposit the money by 30th November 2012 and yet he failed to avail this indulgence and waited thereafter for more than one-and-half years to make this application is enough to dismiss the application for extension of time to deposit. - So far as this application is concerned we do not wish to extend the period to deposit the amount already granted till 30th November 2012. It will almost amount to reviewing our order under the garb of extension which is not permissible. Had the applicant deposited the money though late and then sought its extension till the date of deposit then perhaps we could have considered the case for condonation of delay and extending time to deposit. Such was not however the case of applicant. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with court order for depositing money and extension of time for compliance.

In the judgment delivered by A.M. Sapre and A.K. Goswami, JJ., the court dealt with a case where the appellant failed to comply with a court order to deposit a required amount by a specified date. The appellant later filed an application seeking more time to make the deposit, citing financial hardship as the reason. The court noted that despite being granted an indulgence to deposit the money by a certain date, the appellant did not comply and waited for over a year and a half before filing the application for an extension. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the appellant's casual approach towards compliance with the court order and dismissed the application for an extension of time to deposit the amount. The court emphasized that the proper remedy for the appellant would have been to challenge the original order in appeal to the Supreme Court if unsatisfied with the granted time for deposit. The court clarified that extending the period to deposit the amount would amount to reviewing their earlier order, which is impermissible. The court highlighted that had the appellant deposited the money late and then sought an extension, they might have considered condonation of delay, but since that was not the case, the application was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Miscellaneous Case No. 409 of 2012, which was made in Central Excise Appeal No. 2 of 2012 and decided on 6-9-2012, as it was found to be lacking in merit. The court emphasized that the appellant's failure to comply with the court order in a timely manner and the subsequent delayed application for an extension did not warrant an extension of time for depositing the required amount. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of timely compliance with court orders and the appropriate legal remedies available in case of dissatisfaction with court decisions.