CESTAT appeal restoration after delayed pre-deposit, with protective undertakings and bank-account defreezing pending merits.

The Supreme Court addressed restoration of a CESTAT appeal after belated compliance with the pre-deposit requirement and related recovery action. It noted that the required amount had been deposited late and that recovery proceedings and attachment had followed, but exercised discretion in the interests of justice to restore the appeal for decision on merits. To protect the dispute during pendency, the petitioner was directed to give an undertaking not to alienate movable or immovable property or create third-party rights, and the respondents were asked to defreeze the bank accounts subject to their use only for business purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the CESTAT should be restored for decision on merits despite the delay in complying with the pre-deposit requirement, and whether ancillary protective directions were warranted.

Analysis: The order records that the petitioner had deposited the required amount belatedly and that recovery proceedings and attachment had followed. In these circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion in the interests of justice to restore the appeal before the CESTAT for disposal on its own merits. To preserve the subject matter of the dispute during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was required to furnish an undertaking not to alienate movable or immovable property or create third-party rights. The respondents were also directed to defreeze the bank accounts, with the petitioner undertaking to use them only for business purposes.

Conclusion: The appeal was restored for hearing on merits, with protective conditions imposed in favour of the revenue side pending adjudication.

---