1989 (3) TMI 290 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for modification of Stay Order, Compliance with Tribunal's order, Jurisdiction to modify order after High Court's confirmation, Non-compliance with stay order, Potential dismissal of appeal for non-compliance.

Analysis:
The case involves an application for the modification of a Stay Order issued by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The applicants had appealed against a duty and penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune. The Tribunal's Stay Order directed the deposit of a specific amount and the furnishing of a Bank Guarantee within a set timeframe. Instead of complying, the applicants filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the Tribunal's order and for a waiver of the deposit requirement. The High Court modified the Tribunal's order, extending the compliance deadline. The applicants, however, filed a Miscellaneous Application for further modification, citing financial difficulties and failed loan attempts. The Tribunal considered the maintainability of the application given the High Court's confirmation and modification of the order. The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision operated as res judicata and precluded further modification by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that even if the application were deemed maintainable, there were no new grounds to warrant a modification. The arguments presented by the applicants were repetitive and had already been considered by the High Court. The Tribunal emphasized that non-compliance with the Stay Order, as modified by the High Court, could lead to dismissal of the appeal under relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal decided to issue a notice to the applicants to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance before taking further action.

In conclusion, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of complying with judicial orders, especially those modified by higher courts. The case underscores the significance of adherence to legal directives and the potential consequences of non-compliance in legal proceedings. The matter was scheduled for further hearing to address the issue of non-compliance and potential dismissal of the appeal.