- (1.) AN order of adjudication was passed on 28 September 2011 by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow against a company by the name of Musk Tobacco (India) Pvt. Ltd. confirming a duty demand of Rs 7.74 crores and imposing a penalty in the like amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Personal penalties were also imposed on the directors of the company including the appellant who was subjected to a penalty of Rs. 1 crore. The company challenged the order of adjudication before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and by an order dated 10 January 2013, the Tribunal directed a pre -deposit of an amount of Rs. 1 crore while disposing of the stay application. The appeal Central Excise Appeal No 30 of 2013 (Musk Tobacco (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax) filed by the company against the order dated 10 January 2013 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12 March 2013. The Supreme Court on appeals filed by the company granted, on 6 December 2013, an extension of time by two months to effect deposit subject to the condition that the quantum of pre -deposit was enhanced from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 2 crores.
(2.) THE appellant had similarly challenged the order of the Tribunal in appeal dated 10 January 2013 before this Court by filing an appeal Central Excise Appeal No 152 of 2013 (Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax) which was dismissed on 10 October 2013. The appellant did not challenge the order of the Division Bench any further. The appellant has failed to comply with the order of pre -deposit as a result of which the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The challenge in these proceedings is to the order of the Tribunal dated 14 February 2014 formally rejecting the appeal for failure of pre -deposit.
(3.) THE order passed by the Tribunal is unexceptionable. A Division Bench of this Court had declined to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the original order of pre -deposit passed by the Tribunal. The appellant was cognizant of the fact that his appeal was dismissed on 10 October 2013. The Division Bench had observed that the appellant would get a further period of four weeks to deposit the amount. No deposit was effected within the extended period. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was entirely justified and proper in rejecting the appeal for non -compliance. In the present case, it would not be open to the Court to grant any extension of time. An application for extension, if any, ought to have been made before the Division Bench in the appeal which was filed by the appellant challenging the order of pre -deposit. The appellant accepted that order and did not challenge it further before the Supreme Court, though it is stated that now a review petition has been filed. Be that as it may, the present appeal will not give rise to any substantial question of law and it is, accordingly, dismissed.;