Dismissal of Second Petition for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order

The second petition on the same subject was deemed not maintainable by the Court following the disposal of the first petition. Even if considered maintainable, the second petition lacked substance and was required to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Appellate Tribunal had ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 3 Crores, which was not complied with by the petitioners. The subsequent Miscellaneous Civil Application was rejected for failing to present new grounds justifying modification. Due to the petitioner's inability to comply with the pre-deposit order, the petition was ultimately dismissed by the Court.

---

---

Issues:
- Maintainability of the second petition on the same subject
- Compliance with the pre-deposit order by the Appellate Tribunal
- Rejection of the Miscellaneous Civil Application by the Appellate Tribunal

Analysis:
- The second petition on the same subject was deemed not maintainable after the first petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Court. The Court highlighted that the second petition should have been dismissed on this ground alone, without delving into any other aspect.

- Even if the second petition was considered maintainable due to observations in the previous order, it was required to be dismissed for lack of substance. The Appellate Tribunal had ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 3 Crores, with specific amounts to be deposited by the Directors of the petitioner company and the Power of Attorney holder. Despite the previous court order directing the petitioners to file a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal, no such application was filed. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the stay order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted that once the Tribunal dismisses appeals for non-compliance, the order cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction.

- Following the dismissal of the appeals, the petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application before the Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected as no new grounds were presented warranting modification. The Court observed that the petitioners' inability to comply with the pre-deposit order was evident when they failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry about compliance. The Appellate Tribunal's decision to reject the application was deemed appropriate, as restoring the appeal and granting more time for pre-deposit would serve no purpose given the circumstances.

- The petitioner's counsel candidly admitted that the financial condition of the petitioner was such that they would not be able to deposit the pre-deposit amount ordered by the Tribunal, even with additional time. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petition failed and was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

---