TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (1) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the main issue of classification of block board has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their judgment dt. 20-3-95 [1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)] in the Wood Crafts case [1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)], which classification is against the appellant, nevertheless, they have a strong case on limitation. 3. Drawing attention to the impugned orders ld. Adv. submitted that the Collector (Appeals) has dismissed there appeals for non-compliance with the stay order passed by him and as modified by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court. Elaborating on the facts he submitted that while deciding their stay application, Collector (Appeals) vide his Stay Order No. 9/SH/SP/96, dt. 10-9-96 and No. 15/SH/96, dt. 11-9-96 directed the appellant to make pre-deposit amounting to 70% of the total duty confirmed i.e. of Rs. 29,90,415 and of Rs. 1 crore in the second case within a period of 30 days from receipt of the said order. Being dis-satisfied with the said stay order, the applicant moved High Court of Guwahati by way of filing a writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court, who vide their order dt. 27-1-97 directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant's prayer before the Collector (Appeals) for modification of the order of the High Court has been rightly rejected by the said authority in as much as no powers lie with the Collector (Appeals) to change the High Court's directions. We do not find any infirmity in the order impugned before us. 7. It has also been argued before us that the High Court's order wilI not come in the way of the Tribunal's directions for pre-deposit of lower amount than directed by the High Court in as much as High Court's order was operative only when the appeal was pending before the Collector (Appeals). It has been contended that since the impugned order before us is that of the Collector (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for non-compliance, the Tribunal can independently look into the question of pre-deposit at this stage. We do not find any force in this submission of the appellant. There can't be any denying the fact that High Court's order, unless modified, was binding upon the appellant and the appellant, under the law, was bound to implement the same. The Collector's order is merely a result of non-implementation of the High Court's order. The appellants cannot be expected to arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. Such examination to be done in each case. (iv) Factories lying closed for a long time with all the burden of wages etc. devolving upon such manufacturers in terms of Apex Court's directions. 11. These are some of the important facts and subsequent developments which were neither before the Commissioner (Appeals), nor before the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. But nevertheless, these are relevant considerations. 12. It is further seen in some cases, that even where the Tribunal has fixed about 25% of cash pre-deposit, according to our above referred guiding principle, Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati has reduced the cash pre-deposit to 50% of the amount ordered by the Tribunal and 50% to be guaranteed by a Bank. [Ref. Guwahati H.C's order dt. 1-4-98 in Civil Rule No. 1566 of 1988 in the matter of Wood Craft (P) Ltd. in appeal No. E-319/97 and S.P. No. 270/97.] 13. There can be no binding precedent in interlocutory matters. Direction for pre-deposit of cash on a stay petition under Section 35F was on an interlocutory application in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Merely because the High Court in this particular case, when an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red Order is a common one for two appeals; namely E/R-403/97 (SP-329/97) and for E-54/98 (SP-44/98). At the outset Shri Mukherjee claimed that in the first mentioned case, the appellants had approached the competent authority under the KVSS and on this ground sought adjournment. The deliberations in this Order therefore relate only to the second numbered Order involving disputed demand of duty of Rs. 1,03,63,709.24. 18. In para 10 of his Order the ld. Member (Technical) has narrated the various grounds on which the Tribunal has made the policy of prescribing the amount to be deposited as a pre-condition to hearing of the appeal at 25% of the amount confirmed in the lower Orders. In the case of appeals placed in similar situation and in para 15 of his order has prescribed the quantum of pre-deposit accordingly. The ld. Member (Judicial) in the first sentence of para 6 has concurred with this practice. The only ground on which she holds for higher quantum of deposit is the High Court Order dt. 17-12-96 as modified on 27-1-97. In para 7 she has narrated the facts with her conclusion that the assessees had flouted the Orders of the High Court by circumventing the procedures of ....