1. This is an appeal filed before the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant Company has come up with this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune on 23rd September, 1982. The Order emanated from the proceedings initiated as a sequel to seizure of large quantities of biscuits, allegedly removed from the Company's premises without payment of excise duty and other related contravention of provisions of law and procedure. After consideration of the evidence before him, the learned Collector passed an order, ordering confiscation of the seized Biscuits and imposition of security in the amount of Rs. 30,000 besides levy of duty of Rs. 2,37,760.50 and penalty of Rs. 25,000. This appeal was filed in the Registry of the Tribunal on 30-12-82, and has been taken today, for hearing.
2. It is noticed that the appeal was filed without compliance of the requirements of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Shri G.S. Khadilkar, Advocate appeared for the Appellant and on being confronted with this fact of non-payment or non-deposit of the amounts of duty and penalty covered by the order-in-appeal, admitted that not only the amount of duty and penalty have not been deposited, but even no petition for stay has been made at the time of [filing of the appeal. On his attention being drawn to the statutory requirements, he had no comments to offer.
4. In view of this situation, arising out of the failure on the part of the Appellant Company, to comply with the mandatory provisions of law and having failed to seek an order of the Tribunal, for keeping in abeyance the operation of the order, so far as it related to Duty and Penalty, this lapse on their part, will entail dismissal of the appeal because it cannot be entertained, in the absence of statutory provisions having been complied with. The only event when this requirement could be dispensed with was, an order of the Tribunal, as envisaged by Proviso to Section 35F, but the appellant has not even! attempted to avail of the same as there is no stay Petition till the date of hearing. It is not even a case, where the appellant could plead ignorance because, contents of Para 9 of the appeal appearing before Statement of Facts, indicates they were aware of the requirements of Law. It is thus a clear case of wanton disregard of the provisions.
5. The appeal is therefore rendered unentertainable and is dismissed accordingly.