Tribunal denies waiver request, upholds deposit & guarantee requirements, dismisses appeal for non-compliance.

The Tribunal rejected the application for waiver of pre-deposit and bank guarantee in an excise duty case, citing lack of jurisdiction to modify the earlier order confirmed by the High Court. Despite the applicants' arguments regarding their financial position, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to grant the waiver. The applicants were issued a notice to show cause for non-compliance with the order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for failure to meet the deposit and guarantee requirements as directed by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court.

---

---

Issues:
Application under Section 35-F for waiver of pre-deposit and bank guarantee in an excise duty case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The applicants filed an appeal challenging a duty demand and penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise. They sought waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal initially directed a cash deposit of Rs. 13 lakhs and a bank guarantee for the remaining amount. The applicants challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, which extended the compliance deadline. Despite this, the applicants failed to comply and later filed a fresh application seeking modification of the order.

2. The Respondent argued that the new application was not maintainable as the earlier order had become final after confirmation by the Bombay High Court. The Respondent emphasized that the Supreme Court's order directed compliance with the Tribunal's order and did not grant leeway for a fresh application. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to modify the earlier stay order.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's directive to consider any application in accordance with the law. It noted that the earlier order had been confirmed by the High Court and that modifying it would be tantamount to setting it aside. The Tribunal found no legal basis to entertain the fresh application and held that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the previous order.

4. The applicants argued for waiver based on their prima facie case and financial position. They presented financial details to support their liquidity challenges. However, the Tribunal observed that the financial position had slightly improved since the last balance sheet submission. Despite the arguments presented, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to grant the waiver and rejected the application.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for waiver and issued a notice to the applicants to show cause for non-compliance with the earlier order before dismissing the appeal for failure to deposit the required amount and furnish the bank guarantee as directed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court.

---