2015 (1) TMI 713 - HC - Central Excise

Petition Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order

SAMEER ISPAT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Court upheld the dismissal of the petition due to the petitioners' failure to comply with the pre-deposit order and exhausting all available legal ... Waiver of pre deposit - Held that:- Petitioners seek a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits having deposited an amount of ₹ 5 lacs allegedly in January 2012. The said relief cannot be granted by this Court in the present proceedings once the petitioners have exhausted all the available remedies in respect of the order of pre-deposit. That apart, another writ petition filed by the petitioners being [2015 (1) TMI 667 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] (M/s. Sameer Ispat and Others v. Custom, Excise and Service Tax) against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners for non-compliance of the order requiring them to deposit ₹ 5 lacs has also been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court - it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any direction at variance with the direction which has already been issued by this Court earlier. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Compliance with the order of deposit by the petitioners.2. Seeking direction for the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits.3. Dismissal of the petitioners' application for extension of time to deposit the amount.4. Dismissal of the petition.Comprehensive Analysis:1. The petitioners were directed by the CESTAT to deposit an amount of Rs. 15 lacs, which was later reduced to Rs. 5 lacs by the High Court. The petitioners failed to comply with this order of deposit within the stipulated time frame. Despite filing modification and recall/restoration applications, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. Subsequent applications for recall and extension of time were also dismissed by the Division Bench of the Court.2. The petitioners, in their current plea, sought a direction for the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal on merits, claiming to have deposited the required amount in January 2012. However, the Court noted that the petitioners had exhausted all available remedies concerning the pre-deposit order. Another writ petition filed by the petitioners against the Tribunal's dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance was also rejected by a learned Single Judge of the Court.3. Given the circumstances and the previous decisions of the Court regarding the pre-deposit order, the Court deemed it inappropriate to issue any new direction that contradicts the earlier directives issued by the Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that no costs were to be imposed.4. In conclusion, the Court's judgment upheld the dismissal of the petition due to the petitioners' failure to comply with the pre-deposit order and the exhaustion of all available legal remedies in this regard. The Court's decision was based on the principle of upholding previous directives and maintaining consistency in legal proceedings.