1 cexa51-10+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.51 OF 2010 Haresh Suresh Deora ..Appellant. Versus The Union of India & Others ..Respondents. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.52 OF 2010 Rekha Suresh Deora ..Appellant. Versus The Union of India & Others ..Respondents. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.53 OF 2010 Suresh Kumar Deora ..Appellant. Versus The Union of India & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Madhur R. Baya with Mr.Sushant Murthy for the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr.S.D. Bhosale for the respondents. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ. DATE : 18th November, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard. Admit on the following substantial questions of law, which are common in all the appeals. 2 cexa51-10+ A. Whether the tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal and stay application of the appellant without even hearing the appellant on the same. B. Whether the tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellants (ex-directors) for non compliance of its order of stay by another person i.e. the Company. 2. The dispute in these appeals relate to the order of CESTAT, whereby the appeals filed by the appellants have been dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to comply with the pre-deposit order passed by the Tribunal. 3. In the present case, by a common order-in-original dated 21st January 2008, penalties were imposed on the appellants as well as several other parties. Against the levy of penalty, the appellants as well as other parties filed separate appeals along with stay applications before the CESTAT. By a common order dated 14th November 2008, the CESTAT disposed off the stay applications filed by the appellants along with other appellants. In the said order, the CESTAT granted waiver of pre-deposit subject to one of the appellants, namely Shrishti Impex Private Limited depositing a sum of Rs.15 crores. Perusal of the said order of CESTAT clearly shows that there was no direction to the appellants to make any pre-deposit of penalty imposed. In such circumstances, the CESTAT could not have dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants on 8th March 2010 on the ground that the appellants have not complied with the stay order dated 14th November 2008 when in fact there 3 cexa51-10+ was no such order directing the appellants to make any pre-deposit. In the absence of any order directing the appellants to make pre-deposit, the appeals filed by the appellants could not be dismissed on the ground that Shrishti Impex Private Limited had failed to make pre-deposit. 4. In these circumstances, the order of the CESTAT dated 8th march 2010 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the CESTAT to decide the stay applications filed by the appellants afresh and in accordance with law. 5. The appeals are disposed off accordingly. (R.M. Savant, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)