CESTAT grants appeal, sets aside dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit; case remanded for fresh hearing

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order that dismissed the appellant's appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit directive. The Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh hearing after the appellant deposited the full amount of Rs.25 lakhs and the Revenue acknowledged the procedural nature of the dismissal. The decision was based on the appellant's unintentional non-compliance due to pursuing a writ petition against the deposit order, and the subsequent fulfillment of the pre-deposit requirement.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit order.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur I, where the appellant's appeal had been dismissed due to the technical ground of failing to comply with the direction to make a pre-deposit of Rs.25 lakhs by a specified date. The appellant's counsel argued that the non-compliance occurred because the appellant was pursuing a writ petition against the original order requiring the deposit. Subsequently, the appellant withdrew the appeal and deposited the entire amount of Rs.25 lakhs along with the balance demand. It was emphasized that the default in compliance was unintentional and stemmed from challenging the pre-deposit order in court.

The Revenue representative, Shri N. Pathak, acknowledged that the appeal had been dismissed solely on the technicality of non-compliance with the pre-deposit directive. Given that the appellant had now deposited the full amount of duty, the Revenue had no objections to setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remanding the matter for a fresh hearing. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the impugned order and remanding the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits. This decision was made in light of the appellant's subsequent compliance with the pre-deposit requirement and the acknowledgment by the Revenue that the dismissal was based solely on a procedural issue.

---