2014 (3) TMI 667 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal reinstated after compliance with deposit order

M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Surat

The High Court dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with a predeposit order of Rs.2.00 lakh. The Applicant later complied with the High Court's ... Restoration of appeal - Non-compliance with the direction to make a predeposit - Held that:- a report received from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner (AR) on 5.08.2013, to the effect that the amount of Rs.2.00 lakh has been deposited by the Applicant by a Pay Order dated 03.06.2013 and realized by the Department on 17.06.2013 - In view of the fact that the Applicant has ultimately complied with the Tribunal’s Order dated 25.06.2007 and the direction of the Hon’ble High Court dated 08.05.2013, we recall our Order dated 08.08.2007 and restore the Appeal to its original number - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Restoration of Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with predeposit order.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Applicant seeking restoration of their Appeal which was dismissed for non-compliance with the direction to make a predeposit of Rs.2.00 lakh. The Applicant had been directed by the Tribunal to make the predeposit within a specified timeframe, failing which their Appeal was dismissed. The Applicant had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta against the Tribunal's order. The High Court, while dismissing the appeal, extended the period of deposit till a later date. The Applicant then complied with the High Court's direction and made the deposit on the specified date.The Applicant's consultant argued that the appeal before the High Court was disposed of on a particular date, and the deposit was made in compliance with the extended period granted by the High Court. On the other hand, the Revenue's Assistant Commissioner confirmed the deposit made by the Applicant and its realization by the Department on a specific date. Considering these submissions and facts, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had ultimately complied with both the Tribunal's initial order and the High Court's direction. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to recall its earlier order dismissing the Appeal for non-compliance and restored the Appeal to its original number. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Applicant seeking restoration was allowed based on the compliance with the deposit requirement as directed by the High Court.