2011 (9) TMI 313 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Section 35F: Reduced Pre-Deposit Required

M/s. Karnataka Metal Company & Others Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Hyderabad

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, dismissed appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, directing parties to ... Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery - non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - pre-deposit towards penalties - pre-deposit was not made within the prescribed time and, consequently, the appeals came to be dismissed for non-compliance - Held that prima facie case has not been made out by the appellants - So after dispensing with pre-deposit for the purpose of the present appeals - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:- Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of amounts adjudged against the applicants/appellants.- Dismissal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.- Direction by the appellate authority to pre-deposit certain amounts under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.- Failure to make the pre-deposit within the prescribed time leading to dismissal of appeals.- Claim of a prima facie case against the demands of duty and penalties by the appellants.- Opposition by the learned DR to the stay applications based on the findings of the original authority.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, involved applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning amounts adjudged against the respective applicants/appellants. The appeals filed by the parties were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellate authority had directed the parties to pre-deposit certain amounts under the same Act, which were not complied with within the prescribed time, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals. The learned counsel for the appellants argued for a prima facie case against the demands of duty and penalties. The learned DR opposed the stay applications based on the findings of the original authority.Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that a prima facie case had not been made out by the appellants. However, it was determined that only one of the appellants needed to make a pre-deposit, and the amount required was reduced from the original directive. Specifically, M/s. Adhikasri Electromech Ltd. was instructed to pre-deposit Rs. 3,00,000 within 4 weeks. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand on these terms, after dispensing with the pre-deposit requirement for the purpose of the present appeals. This decision was pronounced and dictated in open Court by the Tribunal.