2018 (4) TMI 944 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal restores appeal emphasizing statutory right; compliance with pre-deposit condition crucial for appeal process

S.B. Packaging Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Rohtak

The Tribunal recalled its order of dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions and restored the appeal for final hearing, emphasizing the ... Restoration of appeal - compliance with pre-deposit - whether the said circumstances of the case, the appeal can be restored or not? - Held that: - In this case against the order of dismissal of appeal by this Tribunal, the appellant made pre-deposit and came for restoration of appeal as directed by the BIFR. Although the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan [2015 (4) TMI 962 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the order itself that the said order shall not be treated as precedence in any other case but the ratio of the said order is required to be follows by the courts below. The main thrust of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that of the statutory right of the appeal should not be defeated. Thus, as the applicant has complied with the direction of the Tribunal for pre-deposit. In the circumstances merit and statutory right of the appeal should not be defeated for other circumstances. Appeal restored to its original number. Issues involved:Restoration of appeal based on compliance with pre-deposit conditions.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an application for restoration of appeal after a series of legal proceedings. The Tribunal initially dismissed the stay application but waived the penalty. Subsequently, the High Court directed the Tribunal not to dismiss the appeal for want of pre-deposit. The Tribunal then restored the stay application but required the applicant to make a pre-deposit of the entire amount to hear the appeal.2. Despite various legal actions and appeals, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The BIFR sanctioned a revival scheme for the applicant, requesting the Tribunal to restore the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit. The applicant complied by depositing the required amount and filed an application for restoration of the appeal.3. The appellant's counsel argued for restoration of the appeal, citing compliance with the pre-deposit condition and referring to relevant legal precedents. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relied on a judgment where a similar application for restoration of appeal was dismissed.4. The Tribunal examined the circumstances and legal precedents cited by both sides. It noted a case where substantial pre-deposit was offered for entertaining appeals, emphasizing the statutory right of appeal should not be defeated. The Tribunal also considered judgments from different High Courts and the Apex Court regarding restoration of appeals based on compliance with pre-deposit conditions.5. Referring to the decision in a specific case, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's compliance with the pre-deposit condition should not lead to the defeat of the appeal's merit and statutory right. Therefore, the Tribunal recalled its order of dismissal for non-compliance and restored the appeal to its original number for final hearing.6. The Tribunal directed the Registry to list the appeal for final hearing, emphasizing the importance of upholding the statutory right of appeal and ensuring that compliance with pre-deposit conditions does not hinder the appeal process.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the Tribunal's decision to restore the appeal based on compliance with pre-deposit conditions and the statutory right of appeal.