The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh lashed out on non-remittance of pre deposit.
The Tribunal directed the Appellant to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs within a period of 12 weeks as a condition for hearing the appeal in terms of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 out of the penalty of Rs.3.5 crores which has been challenged by him in the Appeal.
The Appellant, M/s. Devinder Singh Narang did not deposit the amount and filed the application for modification of order before this Tribunal but the same was dismissed and in the interest of justice the period to make pre-deposit was further extended by six more weeks by the Tribunal. Thereafter, instead of making pre-deposit the Appellant challenged the said order of the Tribunal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and ultimately the same was dismissed by the High Court with the liberty to the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal against the order of the Tribunal
Against the order of the High Court, the Appellant filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed but while dismissing the SLP, Supreme Court extended the time to deposit the amount of Rs.50 lacs upto 31.10.2013.
The Bench consisting of P V Subba Rao, Technical Member and Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member observed that “When a person has no respect for the order of the highest Court of the land then what to talk of the Tribunal. Such persons don’t deserve any leniency. The intentions of the appellant were very clear since the very first day when this Tribunal has passed the order of pre-deposit on 03.06.2011.”
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said “We are also aware of the fact that initially this Tribunal while ordering for pre-deposit in the year 2011 had specifically observed that non deposit of the amount would result in automatic dismissal of the appeals without any further notice to the appellants but still so many opportunities were granted to the appellant to deposit the amount but of no avail. Such a contumacious conduct of the appellant cannot be tolerated.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
