1987 (11) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with tribunal orders, stay applications, penalty deposit, adjournment requests, second stay applications.

The judgment pertains to a case where the appellants failed to comply with the orders of the tribunal regarding the deposit of penalties imposed on them. Initially, the appellants had filed stay applications, which were heard on multiple occasions. The tribunal rejected the stay applications but granted the appellants 12 weeks to deposit the penalty amounts. However, on subsequent hearing dates, the appellants did not appear, and the registry was asked to confirm if the penalties had been deposited. The appellants' advocate sought adjournments citing health reasons, despite ample time given to comply. Later, six of the appellants filed second stay applications, which were rejected by the tribunal for lack of new grounds and failure to comply with the earlier order. The tribunal deemed granting another hearing on the second stay applications unnecessary and viewed it as an attempt to subvert the tribunal's orders. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the tribunal's orders, relying on a Supreme Court judgment for support.

The tribunal noted that the appellants had been given sufficient time to deposit the penalty amounts as per the earlier order. The failure to comply and the subsequent filing of second stay applications without valid grounds or compliance reports indicated a lack of good faith. By not disclosing the rejection of their first applications and the tribunal's earlier order, the appellants' actions were deemed to be lacking transparency. The tribunal emphasized the importance of upholding its orders and preventing the misuse of the legal process through frivolous applications. As a result, the second stay applications were rejected outright, and the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the tribunal's orders, as mandated by Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed all appeals due to the appellants' failure to comply with the orders issued under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on the appellants' repeated non-compliance despite being granted adequate time to deposit the penalty amounts. The tribunal's stance was supported by a Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to tribunal orders and preventing the misuse of legal procedures.