Appeals deemed maintainable despite non-compliance with Section 129E, deposit waiver applications expedited.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were maintainable as the orders dismissing the appeals for non-compliance with Section 129E were considered orders under Section 128A(3) and appealable under Section 129-A(1)(b). Applications for dispensing with the deposit in both appeals were to be scheduled for an early hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeals.
2. Interpretation of Section 128A(3) and Section 129-A(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Right of appeal and statutory conditions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeals:
The core issue was whether the final orders made by the Collector (Appeals) on 21-1-1985, dismissing the appeals, are comprehended by Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, thereby making them appealable to the Tribunal under Section 129-A(1)(b).

2. Interpretation of Section 128A(3) and Section 129-A(1)(b):
The Tribunal examined whether the orders dismissing the appeals for non-compliance with the deposit requirement under Section 129E fall within the scope of Section 128A(3). The Tribunal concluded that the orders confirming the original demands, due to the appellants' failure to comply with the deposit requirement, are indeed orders under Section 128A(3). Therefore, such orders are appealable under Section 129-A(1)(b).

3. Applicability of Section 129E:
The Tribunal discussed the role of Section 129E, which mandates the deposit of the duty demanded or penalty levied as a condition precedent for the hearing of an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the rejection or dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with Section 129E results in confirming the order appealed against, thus making it an order under Section 128A(3).

4. Right of Appeal and Statutory Conditions:
The Tribunal reiterated that the right of appeal is statutory and subject to conditions prescribed by the statute. It emphasized that an appeal remains infructuous unless the deposit is made or dispensed with due to undue hardship. The Tribunal cited various precedents to support the view that orders dismissing appeals on preliminary grounds, such as non-compliance with deposit requirements, are still appealable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the appeals are maintainable, as the orders dismissing the appeals for non-compliance with Section 129E are considered orders under Section 128A(3) and are thus appealable under Section 129-A(1)(b). The applications for dispensing with the deposit in both appeals were to be scheduled for an early hearing.

---