Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 50 - AT - Central ExciseNon deposit of Pre deposit - appellant has been harping upon that they had filed a miscellaneous application for modification of order of pre-deposit - this is second round of litigation before the Tribunal - Held that - On scrutiny of the records of the ea, hence, the claim of the appellant that out come of the modification application was not heard and was not intimated seems to be incorrect. As regards the claim of appellant that they have complied with the stay order and deposited the entire amount of duty, it is found that the said amount was deposited by him on 22.03.2012 i.e. after the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. There is nothing on record to show that appellant has approached to this Tribunal for extension of time for complying with the order of pre-deposit - FAA was correct in not deciding the appeal for non compliance with the order of pre-deposit from the Tribunal.
Issues:
- Non-appearance of the appellant during the stay petition - Dismissal of the stay petition due to non-compliance with the Tribunal's order - Dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority for failure to deposit the amount within the specified time - Claim of the appellant regarding the modification application and compliance with the stay order Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, addressed various issues. Initially, when the stay petition was called, there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The Court master presented a copy of the written submission filed by the appellant, which was taken on record. Due to the narrow compass of the issue, the Tribunal dismissed the stay petition and proceeded to dispose of the appeal itself. Regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority, it was highlighted that the appellant had failed to deposit the entire amount of duty liability within the specified time frame set by the Tribunal in the stay order dated 15.7.2011. Despite the appellant's claim of filing a miscellaneous application for modification of the pre-deposit order, it was revealed that the said application had been dismissed earlier. The appellant's assertion of compliance with the stay order by depositing the duty amount after the appeal dismissal was not considered sufficient. The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal emphasized that the impugned order was legally sound and free from any defects. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal pointed out that it had previously not entertained an appeal/application in an identical issue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected based on the non-compliance with the pre-deposit order and the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the Court by Mr. M.V. Ravindran.
|