Tribunal grants modification of deposit amount & stay application, nullifies prior order, sets fresh hearing date

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's request for modification of previous orders regarding the deposit amount and restoration of the stay application. The Tribunal considered the order passed without notice to the appellant as null and void, directing a fresh consideration of the stay application. Despite opposition from the respondent, the Tribunal emphasized the challenges faced by appellants in verifying hearing dates and decided to reconsider the matter, following CESTAT's Circular, by allowing the miscellaneous application and scheduling the stay application for a hearing on a specified date.

---

---

Issues:
1. Modification of previous orders regarding deposit amount.
2. Restoration of stay application.
3. Validity of an order passed without notice to the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought modification of previous orders requiring a deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs within four weeks. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of a stay application, which was disposed of as there was no question of restoration. The appellant then filed the present application for modification.

2. The appellant argued that the order dated 29.5.2013 was passed in their absence, as their appeal and stay application were not listed in the cause list. The appellant contended that the order passed without notice and presence should be considered null and void, requesting the Tribunal to reconsider their stay application afresh.

3. The respondent opposed the appellant's submission, emphasizing that notice had been issued to the appellant, making it their duty to appear for the hearing. The respondent suggested that the appellant should have verified from the Tribunal's office whether their case was listed, especially after receiving notice. However, the Tribunal was not entirely convinced by the respondent's arguments. The Tribunal noted that notices are often issued months in advance, and the cause list is published weekly, making it challenging for appellants to ascertain hearing dates. Therefore, the Tribunal held that if an appellant made efforts to verify the cause list and their case was not listed, they cannot be faulted. The Tribunal applied CESTAT's Circular and decided to consider the matter afresh, allowing the miscellaneous application and posting the stay application for a hearing on a specified date.

---