TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Excise Appeals for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Orders</h1> <h3>SUDHIR JAMNEJA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA </h3> The Tribunal dismissed the applications and appeals in Excise Appeal Nos. 844 & 845 of 2009 due to the applicants' failure to comply with the ... - Issues:- Stay of order passed in Excise Appeal Nos. 844 & 845 of 2009- Failure to comply with pre-deposit requirement- Grant of stay by Tribunal- Dismissal of appeals for non-complianceIssue 1: Stay of order passed in Excise Appeal Nos. 844 & 845 of 2009:The applicants sought a stay of the order passed in Excise Appeal Nos. 844 & 845 of 2009, citing the admission of their appeal by the Allahabad High Court on substantial legal questions. The Tribunal noted the absence of any stay granted by them on the said orders. Despite several opportunities given to the applicants to comply with the pre-deposit requirement, they failed to do so. The Tribunal emphasized the consequences under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders. The matter was adjourned multiple times to allow the applicants to provide reasons for non-compliance, but no satisfactory explanation was provided. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the applications and the appeals themselves due to the failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement.Issue 2: Failure to comply with pre-deposit requirement:The Tribunal highlighted the importance of complying with the pre-deposit requirement as mandated by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was made clear to the applicants that failure to meet this requirement would lead to dismissal of the appeals. Despite being given opportunities to explain the non-compliance, the applicants failed to provide adequate reasons. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of valid reasons for non-compliance, dismissal of the appeal is the legal consequence. As the High Court had not granted a stay on the pre-deposit requirement, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeals due to non-compliance.Issue 3: Grant of stay by Tribunal:The Tribunal clarified that the question of granting a stay by them to the order passed in the stay applications did not arise. The applicants had appealed against the order related to stay applications, which was admitted by the Allahabad High Court but without a stay on the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal underscored that failure to comply with pre-deposit orders results in dismissal of the appeal itself unless valid reasons are provided. In this case, as no valid reasons were presented for non-compliance, the Tribunal did not grant a stay on the pre-deposit requirement.Issue 4: Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance:In light of the applicants' persistent failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement despite multiple opportunities and the absence of valid reasons for non-compliance, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the applications and the appeals themselves. The Tribunal emphasized that adherence to the pre-deposit requirement is crucial as per the law, and non-compliance leads to dismissal of the appeal. Dismissing the appeals was deemed necessary to uphold the legal mandate of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, especially since the High Court had not granted a stay on the pre-deposit requirement despite admitting the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
