1992 (10) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand of excise duty and penalty
- Application for dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty
- Compliance with Stay Order modified by High Court
- Tribunal's power to modify High Court's order
- Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 35F

Analysis:
The appellants filed an appeal against the demand of excise duty and penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. They also sought dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal, in its Stay Order No. 67/92-C, directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 3,00,000 within ten weeks, with a waiver of the balance amount upon compliance. However, the High Court modified this order, requiring a deposit of Rs. 1,50,000 in cash and providing security for the remaining amount. The appellants failed to comply with the High Court's modified order, leading to a subsequent application requesting the Tribunal to waive the cash deposit condition.

The Tribunal clarified that it lacked the authority to alter the High Court's order modifying the Stay Order. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that once an interlocutory order has been confirmed by a higher court, it operates as res judicata in subsequent applications. As the appellants did not adhere to the modified Stay Order, the Tribunal was compelled to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Act, citing the legal principle established in the case of Naveen Chander v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, 1981 (8) E.L.T. 679 (S.C.).

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' Misc. Application and dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 35F. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to court orders and the legal consequences of failing to comply with directives issued by higher authorities.