Picasso Overseas vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI

Appeal No. C/EH/40350/2015 & C/176/2009

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.No.54/2009 dt. 29.1.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]

Picasso Overseas Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Sridevi, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM :

Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member

Date of Hearing/Decision : 2.7.2015

FINAL ORDER No.40732/2015

Per R. Periasami

Revenue filed MISC application for early hearing and disposal of appeal as appellants have not complied with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. The revenue involved in the appeal is Rs.2,73,31,320/-.

2. On perusal of records, we find that this Tribunal vide Stay Order No.836/09 dt. 7.9.2009 directed the appellant to predeposit entire anti-dumping duty of Rs.2,73,31,320/- within 8 weeks and report compliance on 16.11.2009. Against the stay order, appellant preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. The Hon'ble Single Judge by order dt. 12.11.2009 in W.P.No.23063/2009 modified the predeposit order by reducing the predeposit amount to Rs.75 lakhs. Aggrieved by the order, appellant preferred a writ appeal before the High Court, Madras. The Division Bench of the High Court vide interim order dt. 12.1.2010 in W.A.No.30/2010 and M.P.No.1/2010 and directed that Tribunal shall not dismiss the appeal until further orders from the High Court. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court by their order dt. 3.3.2010 in W.A.No.30/2010 extended the stay of predeposit and held that Tribunal is at liberty to proceed with the hearing of appeal. Subsequently, Hon'ble High Court dismissed the W.A.No.30/2010 on 31.7.2010 as reported in 2014 (299) ELT 310 (Mad.) and upheld the order dt. 12.11.2009 of learned Single Judge. The relevant paragraphs of the Hon'ble High Court's order are reproduced as under :-

"17.?Considering the question of pre-deposit or otherwise, only the prima facie case and balance of convenience is to be considered. The appellant is not only required, to plead undue hardship, but also to establish the same before the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal refers to the financial hardship pleaded by the appellants in the course of hearing on the basis of balance sheet of 2001-02. The Tribunal has recorded factual findings that the said hardship pleaded by the appellants on the basis of balance sheet for 2001-2002 is not sufficient. Only considering the financial difficulties expressed by the appellant, the learned single judge directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 75 lakhs. The appellant has not produced any further material to establish undue hardship. We do not find any reason warranting interference of the order of the learned single judge.

18.?In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 12-11-2009 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 23063 of 2009. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

3. In view of Hon'ble High Court's order (supra), the appellant was required to comply with predeposit of Rs.75 lakhs in terms of the order dt. 12.11.2009 of learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras.

4. Ld. Counsel submits that she has no instructions from the client and there is no correspondence from the appellant after the Division Bench of High Court's order dt. 31.7.2013.

5. It is seen from the Revenue's EH application that appellants have not made predeposit of Rs.75 lakhs as ordered by the High Court. There is no proof of deposit available on record. Therefore, appellant failed to comply with Hon'ble High Court's order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of High Court order. EH application is disposed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER

gs 3