Appeal Dismissed with Penalty: Payment Due in 3 Months. Rule 41 CESTAT Procedure.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to pay a penalty of &8377;1,45,700 within three months. The appellant's willingness to pay the penalty without additional costs and the invocation of Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules led to the decision to end the prolonged litigation, emphasizing the finality of the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
- Request for adjournment due to change in counsel
- Appellant's willingness to pay penalty without additional cost
- Confirmation of duty by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Appellant's payment under protest
- Invocation of Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules

Request for Adjournment:
The appellant was absent, citing the demise of their previous counsel and the ongoing process of appointing a new advocate. They expressed willingness to pay a penalty without any additional cost to close the appeal, as relevant documents with the deceased advocate could not be traced, hindering the engagement of a new advocate immediately.

Confirmation of Duty and Payment under Protest:
The duty amount of &8377; 1,45,700/- was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for clearances during March 2010 to May 2010. The appellant paid the confirmed demand under protest within two months of confirmation. The order also dropped other demands and imposed a penalty of &8377; 1,45,700/- under Rule 25(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Invocation of Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules:
Considering the appeal's age of over 12 years and the appellant's expression of willingness to pay the entire penalty amount, the tribunal invoked Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, to put an end to the prolonged litigation. The appellant's genuine request to pay the penalty was viewed favorably to secure the ends of justice.

Decision and Order:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to pay a penalty of &8377; 1,45,700/- within three months of receiving the order. The order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was modified accordingly. The judgment was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the finality of the decision.

---