Tribunal Upholds Rs. 12 Crores Pre-Deposit Directive, Dismisses Appeals for Non-Compliance

The Tribunal upheld its directive for the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 12.00 Crores within four weeks, leading to dismissal of appeals for non-compliance, despite various appeals. The Tribunal allowed rectification of a mistake in the stay order but dismissed the request for installment-based deposit. Precedents of installment payments post-appeal dismissal were distinguished. The Tribunal affirmed its lack of jurisdiction to modify orders post High Court decisions, emphasizing compliance with directives. The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with section 35F, highlighting the importance of adhering to Tribunal directives upheld by higher courts.

---

---

Issues:
1. Tribunal's directive for pre-deposit of a specific amount within a set timeframe.
2. Appellant's request for rectification of an error in the stay order.
3. Appellant's plea for installment-based deposit of the directed amount.
4. Applicability of judgments allowing installment payments in similar cases.
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to modify its order post High Court's decision.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal initially ordered the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 12.00 Crores within four weeks to comply with section 35 F. Despite subsequent appeals, including to the High Court and the Apex Court, the directive remained unchanged, leading to dismissal of the appeals due to non-compliance.

2. The appellant filed a Misc. Application seeking rectification of a mistake in the stay order, clarifying that the appeal was against an 'Order in Original' and not an 'Order in Appeal.' This rectification was allowed by the Tribunal.

3. Another Misc. Application was submitted by the appellant requesting permission to deposit the directed amount in 12 monthly installments. However, the Tribunal dismissed this application due to the non-compliance with the original directive.

4. The appellant cited precedents where installment-based payments were allowed post dismissal of appeals. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases as they did not involve challenges to the Tribunal's orders before High Courts, unlike the present situation.

5. The Tribunal, after extensive analysis, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to modify its order once upheld by the High Court and the Apex Court. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that the original directive must be adhered to, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with section 35F.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with its directives, especially when upheld by higher courts, and clarified the limitations on modifying orders post High Court decisions. The appellant's requests for rectification and installment-based payments were carefully considered but ultimately dismissed due to non-compliance with the initial directive.

---