Order Recall Granted, W.P. Restored with No Costs

The application for recalling the order dated April 6, 2016, was accepted, leading to the restoration of W.P. 1654 of 2004 with no costs imposed. The Tribunal's imposition of a pre-condition for a deposit of Rs. 25 lakh was upheld, as valid reasons were found for such a requirement. The petitioner was directed to comply with the deposit within a fortnight to avoid dismissal of proceedings. The judgment emphasized the need for expeditious consideration of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal for a timely resolution of the matter.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for recalling order dated April 6, 2016
2. Imposition of pre-condition for deposit of Rs. 25 lakh by the Tribunal
3. Consideration of submission and conduct of the appellant by the Tribunal
4. Decision on interference with the impugned order
5. Direction for deposit of Rs. 25 lakh by the petitioner within a fortnight
6. Consequences of default in deposit
7. Request for expeditious consideration of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses an application for recalling the order dated April 6, 2016, which dismissed W.P. 1654 of 2004. The causes shown in the application for recalling the order are accepted as sufficient, leading to the order dated April 6, 2016 being recalled. Consequently, W.P. 1654 of 2004 is restored to its file and number, and the application for recalling the order is disposed of with no costs imposed.

2. The Tribunal, through an order dated July 6, 2004, had imposed a pre-condition for the deposit of Rs. 25 lakh. The petitioner challenges this imposition, arguing that the Tribunal did not provide reasons for such a pre-condition. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions and conduct of the appellant, is found to have valid reasons for imposing the pre-condition. As a result, the Court declines to interfere with the impugned order.

3. Despite not interfering with the order, the Court notes that the time for making the pre-deposit has lapsed while the proceedings are ongoing. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 25 lakh with the appropriate authority within a fortnight from the date of the judgment. Failure to comply with this direction would lead to the dismissal of the proceedings before the Custom, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

4. The judgment concludes by disposing of W.P. 1654 of 2004 with no costs imposed. Additionally, in the event of the deposit being made within the specified time frame, the Appellate Tribunal is urged to expedite the consideration of the appeal. This request emphasizes the need for a swift resolution of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal to ensure timely adjudication of the matter.

---