2012 (11) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Mumbai: Appeal Restoration Denied for Non-Compliance and Delay Tactics

SHIVA STEELS ROLLING MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed the applicant's application for restoration of appeal due to repeated dismissals for non-prosecution and ... Application for waiver of pre-deposit was adjourned seven times - Held that:- The intention of applicant was just to delay the decision of application for waiver of pre-deposit of dues. In this case as the duty and penalty amount is more than Rs.6 crores the applicant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost with the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik within a period of two weeks. The application for restoration will be taken up for hearing on 7.11.2012. Issues: Application for restoration of appeal, non-prosecution, waiver of pre-deposit, modification of stay order, compliance with conditions, delay tactics, cost impositionIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the applicant had filed an application for restoration of the appeal after facing dismissals due to non-prosecution. The appellant had initially filed an appeal with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of dues, which was adjourned multiple times at the appellant's request. However, on the seventh hearing, neither the appellant nor any representative appeared, leading to the dismissal of the application for waiver of pre-deposit. Subsequently, an application for modification of the stay order was also dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to comply with the conditions. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's intention seemed to be delaying the decision on the waiver of pre-deposit. Given the substantial duty and penalty amount involved, exceeding Rs.6 crores, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a cost of Rs.50,000 with the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik within two weeks for the restoration application to be considered on a specified date, subject to the cost deposit.The issues involved in this judgment revolve around the applicant's actions leading to dismissals for non-prosecution, the repeated adjournments requested by the appellant, failure to comply with conditions of the stay order, and the Tribunal's observation of potential delay tactics. The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the duty and penalty amount involved, highlighting the need for compliance with procedural requirements and directives. The imposition of a cost for restoration signifies the Tribunal's stance on ensuring accountability and adherence to the legal process. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of timely and diligent conduct in legal proceedings, especially in matters of significant financial implications.