2011 (6) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with legal provisions stresses importance of adherence to court directives

The appeals (E/949 and E/1280 of 2009) were dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment emphasized the ... Pre-deposit - when the matters were called for compliance the appellants neither obtained any stay orders/extension of time from the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay nor they have made any pre-deposit as directed by this Tribunal while disposing of their stay applications – Held that:- appeal Nos. E/949 and E/1280 of 2009 are dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Issues involved:Non-compliance with stay orders leading to dismissal of appeals under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The appellants were directed to pre-deposit the amounts involved and report compliance by a certain date, failing which their appeals would be dismissed. The appellants preferred appeals against the stay orders before the High Court of Bombay, stating that the matters were pending before the court. The Tribunal issued a show-cause notice to the appellants for non-compliance and adjourned the matter. On subsequent compliance dates, the appellants sought further adjournments to present their case before the High Court. However, when called for compliance, the appellants neither obtained stay orders nor made the pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals (E/949 and E/1280 of 2009) were dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The registry was directed to list another appeal separately for deciding the stay application, indicating a separate treatment for that specific case. The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with Tribunal directives and the provisions of the Central Excise Act to avoid dismissal of appeals. It highlights the consequences of failure to adhere to stay orders and the need for timely action in legal proceedings. The decision underscores the significance of following court procedures and fulfilling obligations set forth by the Tribunal to maintain the integrity of the legal process.