2010 (10) TMI 750 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal's Authority Upheld on Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance Cases

COMMR. OF C. EX., KOLKATA-II Versus SHREE GOBINDDEO GLASS WORKS LTD.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's authority to dismiss appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ... Failure to comply with the order of Pre-deposit under Section 35 of the 1944 Act - writ petitions were kept pending for hearing and during pendency of all these writ petitions, appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for non-compliance of the orders directing pre-deposit - Held that:- wherever pre-deposit is required either the same should be dispensed with fully or partially on application being made. If such dispensation is not allowed then the Tribunal would issue a show cause before taking up the appeal for dismissal on account of failure of pre-deposit. On the date fixed, if cause is shown the Tribunal will consider the same and if sufficient cause is to be found then Tribunal can exercise all discretion and may extend the period or may re-consider the question of dispensation of pre-deposit on subsequent event - Matter remanded back to tribunal. Issues Involved:1. Justification of the Tribunal's dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders.2. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding pre-deposit requirements.3. Impact of the insertion of Section 35C(2A) on the pre-deposit requirement and appeal dismissal.4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to dismiss appeals during the pendency of writ petitions.5. Proper procedure for the Tribunal in handling pre-deposit non-compliance.Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of the Tribunal's Dismissal of Appeals for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Orders:The core issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the dismissals were justified, citing Supreme Court decisions that the right of appeal is conditional. The respondent contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to dismiss appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders, especially during the pendency of writ petitions.2. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962:The appellant argued that the Supreme Court had upheld the conditional nature of the right to appeal, requiring compliance with pre-deposit orders. The respondent countered that the insertion of Section 35C(2A) mandated the Tribunal to hear and decide appeals within a specified timeframe, regardless of pre-deposit compliance. The Court concluded that Section 35F is an independent provision requiring pre-deposit in selective cases to secure revenue, and this requirement is not diluted by Section 35C(2A).3. Impact of the Insertion of Section 35C(2A) on the Pre-Deposit Requirement and Appeal Dismissal:The respondent argued that Section 35C(2A) mandated timely disposal of appeals and implied that appeals should be heard on merit without regard to pre-deposit compliance. The Court disagreed, stating that Section 35C(2A) merely fixed a time limit for appeal disposal and did not affect the mandatory nature of pre-deposit requirements under Section 35F.4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Dismiss Appeals During the Pendency of Writ Petitions:The respondent contended that the Tribunal should not dismiss appeals while writ petitions challenging pre-deposit orders were pending. The Court held that there is no provision in the Acts or Rules that automatically stays Tribunal proceedings during the pendency of writ petitions. The Tribunal is not required to stay its hands unless a specific stay order is obtained from a higher forum.5. Proper Procedure for the Tribunal in Handling Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance:The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should provide reasonable and meaningful opportunities to appellants before dismissing appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders. The Tribunal should consider applications for dispensation of pre-deposit objectively and may extend the period or reconsider the dispensation based on new materials or subsequent events. The Court directed the Tribunal to follow these guidelines in handling pre-deposit non-compliance cases.Conclusion:The Court upheld the Tribunal's authority to dismiss appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders but emphasized the need for due process and consideration of dispensation applications. The Court also suggested amending the relevant rules to address pre-deposit non-compliance more effectively. The appeal was disposed of with directions to the Tribunal to decide the matters in accordance with the provided guidelines.