Court reinstates appeals, quashes Tribunal's order, considering challenges faced by petitioners.

The court allowed the petitions, quashed the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeals, and restored the appeals for further proceedings. The court considered the challenges faced by the petitioners in complying with the pre-deposit order, including technical difficulties and the delay in filing the petitions due to the hospitalization of the company director. Despite the delay in making the pre-deposit, the court found the reasons provided by the petitioners justified and reinstated the appeals based on the timely deposit of the required amount within an extended deadline.

---

---

Issues:
1. Compliance with pre-deposit order by the Tribunal
2. Delay in making pre-deposit leading to dismissal of appeals
3. Consideration of delay in filing present petitions

Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with pre-deposit order by the Tribunal
The petitions involved a situation where the petitioners were required to make a pre-deposit of a specified amount within a stipulated time frame as directed by the Tribunal. The petitioners faced challenges in making the pre-deposit due to technical difficulties with the server of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Despite efforts to comply, the petitioners encountered issues with depositing the required amount by the specified deadline. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for failure to report compliance, leading to the petitioners filing the present petitions challenging this decision.

Issue 2: Delay in making pre-deposit leading to dismissal of appeals
The petitioners argued that they were ready to comply with the pre-deposit directions but faced a one-day delay due to technical problems with the server. The respondents highlighted the delay in filing the present petitions, emphasizing the considerable delay of over one and a half years from the date of the impugned order by the Tribunal. However, the petitioners eventually deposited the required sum of money, albeit two days late from the initial deadline. The court observed that the delay of two days in making the pre-deposit, considering the circumstances and efforts made by the petitioners, was not significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the appeals.

Issue 3: Consideration of delay in filing present petitions
The court considered the reasons provided by the petitioners for the delay in filing the present petitions, including the hospitalization of the director managing the company during the relevant period. The court noted that allowing the appeals to be restored would not cause prejudice to either party, especially since the pre-deposit amount had been deposited within a day of the extended deadline granted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned order of the Tribunal, and restored the appeals to be heard on merits.

In conclusion, the court's decision favored the petitioners, considering the circumstances surrounding the delay in making the pre-deposit and the subsequent filing of the present petitions. The court found that the delay in compliance and filing was reasonable under the circumstances, leading to the restoration of the appeals for further proceedings.

---