2015 (11) TMI 1153 - AT - Customs

Tribunal restores appeals post compliance with pre-deposit orders despite delay. Applicants directed to pay cost with dismissal risk.

The Tribunal allowed the restoration of appeals after the applicants complied with pre-deposit orders, despite a significant delay. The applicants were ... Restoration of appeal - Non compliance with pre deposit order - Held that:- Restoration of appeals will not costs any prejudice to either side. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of STC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cestat, Chennai (2015 (7) TMI 820 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) was pursuing the matter before the High Court and subsequently complied the pre-deposit and the appeal was allowed. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Exports) (2015 (9) TMI 398 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) restored the appeal when the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, subject to payment of pre-deposit and ordered payment of 50,000/- as cost to the Department. However, purely on the facts of this case and without creating any precedence for any future case, and in the event of the applicants compliance to pay costs quantified @ ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) within 4 weeks to the Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, Chennai, the appeals shall be restored to its original position - Conditional restoration done. Issues Involved:1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit orders by the applicants.2. Filing of writ petition instead of CMA against stay orders.3. Dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal for non-compliance.4. Restoration of appeals by the applicants after compliance with pre-deposit orders.5. Objection by the respondent against restoration of appeals.6. Consideration of facts and circumstances for restoration of appeals.Analysis:1. The Tribunal initially directed the applicants to pre-deposit a specific amount within a given time frame. Despite extensions, the applicants failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of their appeals for non-compliance.2. Instead of filing CMAs against the stay orders, the applicants filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court ruled that only CMAs could be filed against the Tribunal's stay orders, not writ petitions under article 226.3. The High Court's decision on the writ petition clarified the proper procedure for challenging Tribunal's stay orders. The applicants eventually made the full pre-deposit after the dismissal of their appeals.4. The applicants, upon learning about the dismissal of their appeals, deposited the remaining amount and filed applications for restoration. The applicants argued that since they complied with the Tribunal's stay order and the High Court's direction, their appeals should be restored.5. The respondent objected to the restoration, citing a significant delay of over 10 years between the dismissal and restoration applications. The respondent argued that without a specific direction from the High Court, the restoration should be rejected.6. After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the case documents, the Tribunal noted that the matter was pending before the High Court until the writ petition was dismissed. The applicants then complied with the pre-deposit orders and filed for restoration.7. The Tribunal, following precedents from the High Courts, decided to allow the restoration of appeals. However, the applicants were directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 within four weeks. Failure to comply with this condition would result in the dismissal of appeals without further opportunities for restoration or extension of time.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the restoration of appeals after non-compliance and subsequent compliance with pre-deposit orders.