2017 (8) TMI 1279 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Late Deposit Rejected: Importance of Timely Compliance with Court Orders

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application to recall an order due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order, emphasizing the importance of timely ... Recall of the order - maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt - Held that: - the appeal was dismissed on 2-5-2014 and after a gap of two years, the appellant has made the deposit in the month of April, 2016 but under the pressure of the department when notice under Section 87B of the Finance Act was issued - as per the maxim viailatibus et non dormientibus jura sub veniunt, law helps those who are vigilant and not those who go to sleep - application to recall the order rejected - decided against applicant. Issues:- Non-compliance with pre-deposit order- Request for recall of order based on full deposit made- Objection by Revenue regarding delayed deposit- Consideration of appellant's diligence in complying with ordersAnalysis:The case involved a situation where the appellant failed to comply with a pre-deposit order issued by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant submitted an application requesting the recall of the order based on having made the full deposit. The appellant's counsel argued that all dues had been cleared, and thus, the appeal should be reinstated. On the contrary, the Revenue vehemently objected, highlighting that the deposit was made only after receiving a notice under Section 87B of the Finance Act, indicating a lack of proactive compliance by the appellant.Upon considering both arguments, the Tribunal noted that the deposit was made two years after the dismissal of the appeal, and only under pressure from the department following the issuance of a notice. It was observed that the appellant had not taken any steps to seek an extension of time since the initial dismissal in 2014. The Tribunal cited the legal maxim 'viailatibus et non dormientibus jura sub veniunt,' emphasizing that the law supports those who are vigilant and not those who are negligent.Consequently, the Tribunal decided to reject the application for the recall of the order, underscoring the importance of timely compliance and diligence in legal proceedings. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of adhering to court orders promptly and proactively, as delays in compliance may have adverse consequences on the outcome of the case.